Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time to take a Biden landslide seriously

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 27 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s time to take a Biden landslide seriously

Donald Trump has always treated his presidency as a game show; one where success is measured in ratings and dollars. Controversy is to be welcomed: it keeps attention on him and his fans love it. As politics, it’s been relatively successful – enough so to win him the presidency, even if his approval figures have never been much to write home about and the mid-terms were a serious set-back.

Read the full story here


«13456710

Comments

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    edited June 27
    Like Biden?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,582
    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    Which is probably a good thing, considering the enormous mess he’ll inherit.
    Nonetheless, the Democratic platform will probably be the most radical in a generation or more.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    Someone posted an excellent analysis of Trump by Russell Brand last evening. It was a well structured analysis claiming we do ourselves a disservice by writing Trump off as a ridiculous crank. By first caveating his disdain for Trump, Brand then argued, with evidence, that Trump's oratory and style of presentation brought his audience on board, and his skill as an electoral performer shouldn't be taken lightly. Which is undoubtedly true. At the time of viewing, with the video evidence Brand had used to confirm his discourse, I agreed.

    On waking up this morning I had my doubts. One could make the opposite case that Trump is indeed an idiot, referencing actual footage to confirm this.
  • We must surely consider the header, in the sense that this will be the "reject Trump" election as opposed to the "back Biden" election. That might well be very powerful and in some sense will mirror the election here
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,919
    Good thread.

    It seems all the more relevant given that Trump's disapproval rating in polls recorded by 538 hit 56.1% last night, the highest since January 2018.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    Someone posted an excellent analysis of Trump by Russell Brand last evening. It was a well structured analysis claiming we do ourselves a disservice by writing Trump off as a ridiculous crank. By first caveating his disdain for Trump, Brand then argued, with evidence, that Trump's oratory and style of presentation brought his audience on board, and his skill as an electoral performer shouldn't be taken lightly. Which is undoubtedly true. At the time of viewing, with the video evidence Brand had used to confirm his discourse, I agreed.

    On waking up this morning I had my doubts. One could make the opposite case that Trump is indeed an idiot, referencing actual footage to confirm this.

    It may be true that Trump had rhetorical skills in 2016 that worked in his favour.

    I am less sure that remains true today.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,694
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    Which is probably a good thing, considering the enormous mess he’ll inherit.
    Nonetheless, the Democratic platform will probably be the most radical in a generation or more.
    It will also benefit from an unprecedented outpouring of global goodwill.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,582
    edited June 27

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    It should hardly be their overwhelming focus, but if the evidence leads that prosecutions may well be necessary. It helps the people of America prosecute criminal officials. Of course, given how partisan the place is it might become a habit of both parties to seek to prosecute the other side when they win
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    edited June 27

    We must surely consider the header, in the sense that this will be the "reject Trump" election as opposed to the "back Biden" election. That might well be very powerful and in some sense will mirror the election here

    Re the US I agree but there is no election here until 2024 so is not comparable
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    And just how will that help the people of America

    Trump has spent 4 years subverting the rule of law and bypassing constitutional safeguards.

    Biden can send the next 4 years Trump-proofing the presidency for future generations. That will involve criminal trials I think.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,694

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    It will be a crucial reassertion of the principles of democratic accountability.
  • We must surely consider the header, in the sense that this will be the "reject Trump" election as opposed to the "back Biden" election. That might well be very powerful and in some sense will mirror the election here

    Re the US I agree but there is no election here until 2024 so is not comparable
    I meant our 2019 election, the choose your least hated election
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    It will be a crucial reassertion of the principles of democratic accountability.
    I have no doubt Trump will face litigation for the rest of his life but it does nothing to help Americans
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    DC might well gain Statehood. Perhaps some Federal election laws to protect the right to vote.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    It should hardly be their overwhelming focus, but if the evidence leads that prosecutions may well be necessary. It helps the people of America prosecute criminal officials. Of course, given how partisan the place is it might become a habit of both parties to seek to prosecute the other side when they win
    I agree and you have expressed it better
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,582
    I'd never noticed how stretched and shiny Biden looks sometimes, from some angles I hardly recognise him. But then Trump is no spring chicken himself
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    Re-establishing the rule of law would be very valuable.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    edited June 27

    We must surely consider the header, in the sense that this will be the "reject Trump" election as opposed to the "back Biden" election. That might well be very powerful and in some sense will mirror the election here

    Johnson is far smarter when it comes to self-awareness than Trump. Johnson remains an assett because he exudes positivity ( you might think, false-dawn optimism).

    Trump on the other hand has been successful by being negative. If Trump can successfully deconstruct Biden and the Dems, he's back in play.

    So the only way the Presidential Election mirrors the 2024 GE is that the incumbent must defend their record, but isn't that always the way?

    P.S. If Trump does deconstruct Biden, you could claim it similar to GE2019 where the challenger's credibility was demolished by the incumbent (and by the challenger's own folly).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    Scott_xP said:

    And just how will that help the people of America

    Trump has spent 4 years subverting the rule of law and bypassing constitutional safeguards.

    Biden can send the next 4 years Trump-proofing the presidency for future generations. That will involve criminal trials I think.
    You can never protect a future generation to a particular political view as long as you have regular democratic elections
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    Which is probably a good thing, considering the enormous mess he’ll inherit.
    Nonetheless, the Democratic platform will probably be the most radical in a generation or more.
    It will also benefit from an unprecedented outpouring of global goodwill.
    Biden for the Nobel Peace Prize?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    To be honest, four years of making healing noises and quietly making even quite modest advances on pensions, healthcare and the rule of law would be an enormous service to the United States.

    Right now, a period of calm rather than radicalisation which will undoubtedly cause further division and unrest is what the US needs above all, before it becomes actually ungovernable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 54,582

    Scott_xP said:

    And just how will that help the people of America

    Trump has spent 4 years subverting the rule of law and bypassing constitutional safeguards.

    Biden can send the next 4 years Trump-proofing the presidency for future generations. That will involve criminal trials I think.
    You can never protect a future generation to a particular political view as long as you have regular democratic elections
    The American system is designed to do just that I'd have thought, that's why it's so much work to change the constitution .
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He would cement Obamacare and he would pass the update to the VRA that was so shamefully invalidated by the Supreme Court in Shelby County vs Holder.

    The legislation to do so for the VRA has been sitting on Mitch McConnel's desk but the coward won't put it to a vote.
  • I think it's a bloody good video, no surprise there then!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
  • ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    edited June 27
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    And just how will that help the people of America

    It may satisfy the vengeful, but it has nothing to do with helping peoples lives

    And I dislike Trump with a passion and want him gone now
    It should hardly be their overwhelming focus, but if the evidence leads that prosecutions may well be necessary. It helps the people of America prosecute criminal officials. Of course, given how partisan the place is it might become a habit of both parties to seek to prosecute the other side when they win
    I think it would be far wiser to leave any prosecutions to the various federal district Attorneys General. All Biden need do is replace Trump’s more egregious appointments. SDNY will be one key jurisdiction.
    In any even, prosecutions are not, and should not be a matter for the President.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 27

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    The Nixon Admin was filled with criminals who should have been prosecutes. Not only were they not prosecuted they were promoted and even nominated for the SC by Reagan.

    Reagan's admin was filled with criminals. Bush Snr pardoned them. Barr ran interference.

    GWB had a bucket full of people who should be in jail.

    The failure of America to prosecute political criminals means they just keep doing it.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    Over the last four years I've gradually reconciled myself to the idea that Trump supporters would applaud any action by Trump because they'd adopted him as their man and so would rationalise anything.

    It is possible that the lived reality of job losses, illness and death is breaking through that psychological barrier - and the spectacle of Trump whining about the numbers will only compound the anger once the switch is made.

    I was particularly struck by the strong disapproval number in the poll last night. If the electorate is that determined to get rid of you they tend to make sure that the job is done properly - 1997-style.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    You can never protect a future generation to a particular political view as long as you have regular democratic elections

    I am not talking about a political view.

    The founding fathers assumed a lunatic President would be restrained by the other branches of Government.

    Trump has destroyed that notion.

    Biden needs to bolster the institutions against future Trumps (lunatic presidents, not Republicans)
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613
    Alistair said:

    The Nixon Admin was filled with criminals who should have been prosecutes. Not only were they not prosecuted they were promoted and even nominated for the SC by Reagan.

    Reagan's admin was filled with criminals. Bush Snr pardoned them. Barr ran interference.

    GWB had a bucket full of people who should be in jail.

    The failure of America to prosecute political criminals means they just keep doing it.

    Pots kettles and all that. What you say is true but hardly limited to the US - we wont even sack important people for breaking laws here either. If they are the "right" type, one of us, and in the right team the law is not for them but for little people.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,579
    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    He did, and it was a brilliant, inspiring video, saturated with genuine patriotism, real lump in the throat stuff.

    It was for Armed Forces Day in Venezuela.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 969
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder what hed do with a landslide (assuming such a win was reflected to a degree for other Dems in the Senate) - hes been at this a long time and I find it hard to believe he is as on board with the radical trends of today as some.

    He could usefully spend most of the next 4 years prosecuting members of the Trump administration
    I can't imagine anything more likely to guarantee a Republican House in 2022 and President in 2024. It might enthuse the Democrats' base, but it would put off Independents and enrage Republicans.

    Also it would make it easy for the GOP to highlight and magnify anything illegal the Dems did in office.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    I like this post and I agree.

    I like Starmer's "pick your battles" approach, which even if I agreed with many of the battles Corbyn fought, I do agree in hindsight he should have been more specific.

    For me, Corbyn's advisers are just as much a failure as he is. So much could have been avoided if he had the people advising Starmer now, I think.

    Regardless, Starmer is I think the first Labour leader probably since Brown (who was the PM so I am not sure it really counts but still), who most people can see running the country, even if they don't like him. That's quite a big problem for the Tories as that poll post the election showed most people swapped, or didn't vote because of the leadership.

    I maintain that Johnson is/was never especially popular, definitely not historically. He was just less unpopular than Corbyn (albeit by a long way in the end). Yes he continues to poll high (although Starmer has overturned a 26 point lead to 6 points, so not sure I would say Starmer is doing too badly) but I suspect it won't last.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    He did, and it was a brilliant, inspiring video, saturated with genuine patriotism, real lump in the throat stuff.

    It was for Armed Forces Day in Venezuela.
    I always said he was Caracas.

    Ah, my coat...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,758
    Excellent header. This has long been my view. Trump is toast and it will be NOT be close.

    The 9/4 on under 200 in the EC is spectacular value. It should be close to evens.

    Simply laying Trump also remains great value. Just because you missed out when he was much shorter does not mean you should miss out again now.

    But of course dyor.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,796
    kinabalu said:

    Excellent header. This has long been my view. Trump is toast and it will be NOT be close.

    The 9/4 on under 200 in the EC is spectacular value. It should be close to evens.

    Simply laying Trump also remains great value. Just because you missed out when he was much shorter does not mean you should miss out again now.

    But of course dyor.

    You always seem supremely confident on this.

    I was burnt too badly last time to even dare hope you are right.
  • As Mr Johnson was walking back to his car he almost shook the hand of a female supporter. “Don’t worry, I’ve just washed my hands,” he said.

    I'm sorry but that is unintentionally hilarious
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    If Johnson can optimally redistribute seats to his advantage through long overdue boundary changes, he might not need a 'stop Labour' vote on a vastly declined vote share.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    edited June 27
    To win a landslide and force Trump under 150 EC votes Biden would likely need to get over 55% of the vote as for example Roosevelt did in 1936,Eisenhower did in 1952 and 1956, Johnson did in 1964, Nixon did in 1972 and Reagan did in 1984 when they won landslide victories.

    However Biden's current average poll rating is only 49.7% ie little more than 1% higher than Hillary got in 2016, despite no major 3rd party candidate (which also enabled Reagan and Clinton to get big wins in 1980 and 1996 on a similar score).

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    In my view he is not even certain of winning yet and it will be a close election, talk of a landslide smacks of complacency
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930

    Good thread.

    It seems all the more relevant given that Trump's disapproval rating in polls recorded by 538 hit 56.1% last night, the highest since January 2018.

    -8 approval with Rasmussen. All that needs knowing on that front really.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    I like Starmer's "pick your battles" approach, which even if I agreed with many of the battles Corbyn fought, I do agree in hindsight he should have been more specific.

    For me, Corbyn's advisers are just as much a failure as he is. So much could have been avoided if he had the people advising Starmer now, I think.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,579
    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    Scott_xP said:

    You can never protect a future generation to a particular political view as long as you have regular democratic elections

    I am not talking about a political view.

    The founding fathers assumed a lunatic President would be restrained by the other branches of Government.

    Trump has destroyed that notion.

    Biden needs to bolster the institutions against future Trumps (lunatic presidents, not Republicans)
    How do you do that?

    It failed this time because (a) elected Republicans were scared of losing Primary elections to Trump loyalists and (b) there are deep categorical divisions in US politics (abortion, gun rights, etc) that encourage partisanship.

    I don't see that there's much you can do with institutional reform to address those problems. STV for House of Representative elections might help*, but it would probably make the Senate more important where elections are necessarily binary.

    * It would weaken the role of Primaries and reduce the scope for gerrymandering.
  • I note the article quietly acknowledges that the difficult decisions to come will not be until the autumn. I wonder why?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    edited June 27
    HYUFD said:

    To win a landslide and force Trump under 150 EC votes Biden would likely need to get over 55% of the vote as for example Roosevelt did in 1936,Eisenhower did in 1952 and 1956, Johnson did in 1964, Nixon did in 1972 and Reagan did in 1984 when they won landslide victories.

    However Biden's current average poll rating is only 49.7% ie little more than 1% higher than Hillary got in 2016, despite no major 3rd party candidate (which also enabled Reagan and Clinton to get big wins in 1980 and 1996 on a similar score).

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    In my view he is not even certain of winning yet and it will be a close election, talk of a landslide smacks of complacency

    As is often, but not always, the case on US politics you are in this instance on the money!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    How do you do that?

    You start by prosecuting those who have subverted the process wherever possible
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    edited June 27
    Alistair said:

    The Nixon Admin was filled with criminals who should have been prosecutes. Not only were they not prosecuted they were promoted and even nominated for the SC by Reagan.

    Reagan's admin was filled with criminals. Bush Snr pardoned them. Barr ran interference.

    GWB had a bucket full of people who should be in jail.

    The failure of America to prosecute political criminals means they just keep doing it.

    The Clinton administration was hardly whiter than white.

    Halderman, Erlichman and Hunt for example were jailed from the Nixon administration after Watergate
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    edited June 27

    Someone posted an excellent analysis of Trump by Russell Brand last evening. It was a well structured analysis claiming we do ourselves a disservice by writing Trump off as a ridiculous crank. By first caveating his disdain for Trump, Brand then argued, with evidence, that Trump's oratory and style of presentation brought his audience on board, and his skill as an electoral performer shouldn't be taken lightly. Which is undoubtedly true. At the time of viewing, with the video evidence Brand had used to confirm his discourse, I agreed.

    On waking up this morning I had my doubts. One could make the opposite case that Trump is indeed an idiot, referencing actual footage to confirm this.

    So the thing about his 2016 campaign is that although he's all over the place, especially in the debates, he's constantly hitting on themes that actually work for him. He knew he had some pro-Sanders swing votes, so he'd keep bringing up Bernie Sanders. It looks like a mess, but once you stop caring about whether you look like a mess, you're free to hammer very relentlessly on the right messages.

    Right now it's much harder for him. Part of the problem is that he's having to deal with reality, so he has much less latitude to make up good messages. Relatedly the ground is moving underneath him, so he can say something that sounds good to his audience, like "the virus will just disappear", then a few weeks later he has to say something different, because the virus didn't disappear.

    Finally, I wonder if he's just out-of-touch. When he was in opposition, he was constantly interacting with the voters; He'd actually go to MacDonalds and buy his burgers, and while he was there he'd meet voters and talk to them. Now he still orders MacDonalds, but it's delivered to the White House. Worse, the virus has prevented him from doing the rallies, which seemed to work as a weird kind of public focus group; He'd stand there ad-libbing and see what the audience liked, and build his messages around the best bits, then just pretend he never said the stuff that didn't go down so well. You could of course perfectly well substitute *normal* focus groups, but it's not clear he wants to pay attention to the results.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    The Nixon Admin was filled with criminals who should have been prosecutes. Not only were they not prosecuted they were promoted and even nominated for the SC by Reagan.

    Reagan's admin was filled with criminals. Bush Snr pardoned them. Barr ran interference.

    GWB had a bucket full of people who should be in jail.

    The failure of America to prosecute political criminals means they just keep doing it.

    The Clinton administration was hardly whiter than white.
    Well, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'was,' was.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,316
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    Good: and I say that as someone who voted for Johnson last time.
    At the 2015 election is was expecting a Labour win, and was pretty relaxed about it, even if I didn’t vote for it: Milband was a grown-up.
    I was not so sanguine at the next two: May and even more Johnson were not my first choice as PMs, but Corbyn and his team were genuinely frightening.
    With SKS in charge I’m no longer afraid of a Labour government. This means I don’t have to vote for my local MP who is a pilock.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    An excellent pun, and quite probably true.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    Good: and I say that as someone who voted for Johnson last time.
    At the 2015 election is was expecting a Labour win, and was pretty relaxed about it, even if I didn’t vote for it: Milband was a grown-up.
    I was not so sanguine at the next two: May and even more Johnson were not my first choice as PMs, but Corbyn and his team were genuinely frightening.
    With SKS in charge I’m no longer afraid of a Labour government. This means I don’t have to vote for my local MP who is a pilock.
    Welcome back, I’m proud that we can start to win voters like you back.
  • So what is Starmerism?

    It seems to be the 2017 manifesto with the foreign policy aims of Ed mixed with the relative unity of Blair with the robustness of Brown
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,316

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    Good: and I say that as someone who voted for Johnson last time.
    At the 2015 election is was expecting a Labour win, and was pretty relaxed about it, even if I didn’t vote for it: Milband was a grown-up.
    I was not so sanguine at the next two: May and even more Johnson were not my first choice as PMs, but Corbyn and his team were genuinely frightening.
    With SKS in charge I’m no longer afraid of a Labour government. This means I don’t have to vote for my local MP who is a pilock.
    Welcome back, I’m proud that we can start to win voters like you back.
    I’m not sure I’d go as far as voting Labour, but I am much more likely to abstain (otherwise known as voting Lib Dem).
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 2,726
    He narrowly won in 2016 against a very unpopular candidate, being an unpopular candidate himself. People don’t dislike Biden. They may not think he’s up to much but they don’t actively dislike him.
    HYUFD said:

    To win a landslide and force Trump under 150 EC votes Biden would likely need to get over 55% of the vote as for example Roosevelt did in 1936,Eisenhower did in 1952 and 1956, Johnson did in 1964, Nixon did in 1972 and Reagan did in 1984 when they won landslide victories.

    However Biden's current average poll rating is only 49.7% ie little more than 1% higher than Hillary got in 2016, despite no major 3rd party candidate (which also enabled Reagan and Clinton to get big wins in 1980 and 1996 on a similar score).

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    In my view he is not even certain of winning yet and it will be a close election, talk of a landslide smacks of complacency

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 11,579
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    I am mortarfied by that pun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    Good: and I say that as someone who voted for Johnson last time.
    At the 2015 election is was expecting a Labour win, and was pretty relaxed about it, even if I didn’t vote for it: Milband was a grown-up.
    I was not so sanguine at the next two: May and even more Johnson were not my first choice as PMs, but Corbyn and his team were genuinely frightening.
    With SKS in charge I’m no longer afraid of a Labour government. This means I don’t have to vote for my local MP who is a pilock.
    Well, I had nothing personal against Amanda Milling, whom I have met a few times and always got on well with. Similarly, last time the decision was made easy because the Labour candidate was in effect a paper candidate, a party old stager from Stafford, put up because they could find nobody else.

    But I was rather sad I couldn't bring myself to vote Labour in 2017 as they had an excellent candidate here.

    Of course, by 2024 I may have moved away, or Milling may retire (she has looked very strained over the last year, which is not surprising) so at the moment I can afford to focus on the national picture.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 139
    I rarely disagree with you, but on this I do. I don't remember Jezza doing anything as clear as this, but even if he did the problem is that because of his baggage few people really believed his patriotism.

    Starmer's video is very impressive. I posted yesterday on his plans to win back the Red Wall, and said patriotism without nationalism would be a part of it. It's a long journey, but this is an impressive start.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 23,684
    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    Our armed forces and all armed forces.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    I am mortarfied by that pun.
    It's cementing my reputation for excellence.

    (Am I stretchering a point there?)
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,316
    I have Steve Baker as my MP.
    I do not want to have to vote for him again.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,540

    So what is Starmerism?

    It seems to be the 2017 manifesto with the foreign policy aims of Ed mixed with the relative unity of Blair with the robustness of Brown

    Now if he can just expunge the north London hand wringing tendency we've got a chance.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    edited June 27
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    The Nixon Admin was filled with criminals who should have been prosecutes. Not only were they not prosecuted they were promoted and even nominated for the SC by Reagan.

    Reagan's admin was filled with criminals. Bush Snr pardoned them. Barr ran interference.

    GWB had a bucket full of people who should be in jail.

    The failure of America to prosecute political criminals means they just keep doing it.

    The Clinton administration was hardly whiter than white.

    Halderman, Erlichman and Hunt for example were jailed from the Nixon administration after Watergate
    Spelling, Hyufd, spelling!

    Haldeman....Ehrlichman..... Come on, this is PB.com. We have standards.

    You got Hunt right though.

    Regards

    Peter_the_Pedant

    Edit: You are of course absolutely right, a number of the Watergate crew did do chokey. The sentences weren't that great but it didn't matter. The point was made and their careers, including that of the President, were ended.

    Haldeman was an odious individual, a talented but unprincipled ad-man. Hunt was clever but shallow. Ehrlichman would have been a decent public servant in a different kind of administration.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,540

    I rarely disagree with you, but on this I do. I don't remember Jezza doing anything as clear as this, but even if he did the problem is that because of his baggage few people really believed his patriotism.

    Starmer's video is very impressive. I posted yesterday on his plans to win back the Red Wall, and said patriotism without nationalism would be a part of it. It's a long journey, but this is an impressive start.
    Sorry, I was being ironic.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I do love the contrast with his predecessor.

    Did Corbyn ever record a message for Armed Forces' Day? If so I would be interested to see it.
    I've been saying, he'll win more votes than Corbyn just because he's not Corbyn.
    I'm interested. Not saying I will definitely vote for him, but I will listen to what he has to say when an election comes and consider voting for it. And as an active abstainer last time, I am perhaps the biggest prize of all from Labour's point of view.

    But more than that, somebody this calm, intelligent and thoughtful is somebody who, even I disagree with them politically, I can both imagine as PM and accept them as PM. With Corbyn, I just could not.

    There is unlikely to be a giant 'stop Labour' vote for Johnson or his successor to bank.
    Good: and I say that as someone who voted for Johnson last time.
    At the 2015 election is was expecting a Labour win, and was pretty relaxed about it, even if I didn’t vote for it: Milband was a grown-up.
    I was not so sanguine at the next two: May and even more Johnson were not my first choice as PMs, but Corbyn and his team were genuinely frightening.
    With SKS in charge I’m no longer afraid of a Labour government. This means I don’t have to vote for my local MP who is a pilock.
    Welcome back, I’m proud that we can start to win voters like you back.
    I’m not sure I’d go as far as voting Labour, but I am much more likely to abstain (otherwise known as voting Lib Dem).
    In that case, Baker remains as your MP.

    Cairns is my MP, and after his outrageous behaviour re: Ross England, I would vote SWP or UKIP if it meant his ejection from the HoC.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,540

    I have Steve Baker as my MP.
    I do not want to have to vote for him again.

    Count yourself lucky. I've got Philip Davies.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 1,148
    Scott_xP said:

    How do you do that?

    You start by prosecuting those who have subverted the process wherever possible
    I don't think that works. Absent something to break the partisan cycle it leads to politically-motivated prosecutions of Democrats after 2024 or 2028.

    So what is Starmerism?

    It seems to be the 2017 manifesto with the foreign policy aims of Ed mixed with the relative unity of Blair with the robustness of Brown

    Starmer has a lot of work to do over the next few years - defeat the anti-semites, rebuild the Labour brand, find a personality, etc - but if he and his shadow Cabinet neglect to develop some new ideas that they can package together as a coherent narrative about where they want to take Britain in the 2030s then they will sink.

    The 2017 manifesto was essentially a message of "this is what was wrong about Tory Austerity since 2010". It's not a message relevant to an election in 2024.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    Scott_xP said:
    Why would anyone be so stupid as to think we should not be seeking advice from Germany and other nations for an as yet covid app that works in any country 100%
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 2,316

    I rarely disagree with you, but on this I do. I don't remember Jezza doing anything as clear as this, but even if he did the problem is that because of his baggage few people really believed his patriotism.

    Starmer's video is very impressive. I posted yesterday on his plans to win back the Red Wall, and said patriotism without nationalism would be a part of it. It's a long journey, but this is an impressive start.
    Sorry, I was being ironic.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,099
    Absolute disaster emerging in the US. The UK is likely now heading in a similar direction.

    I'm just beginning to think the Dems have played an unintentional blinder in selecting Joe Biden.

    Who do you want in a situation like this? A rock solid, sensible, tried-and-trusted safe pair of hands, that's what.

    A big victory is by no means impossible.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    I am mortarfied by that pun.
    It's cementing my reputation for excellence.

    (Am I stretchering a point there?)
    Not at all. The solid consistency of your puns contributes to a solid edifice, in contrast with Luckguy’s sloppy effort.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 4,877
    Makes complete sense to move into Labour territory on economics. Should help hold onto their new supporters, and there's nowhere else for the low tax, laissez-faire capitalist vote to go.

    The political centre of the country is a little to the left of centre economically and a little to the right of centre on social issues, although that's arguably a crude way of representing the present situation.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,099
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    I am mortarfied by that pun.
    It's cementing my reputation for excellence.

    (Am I stretchering a point there?)
    As falt goes you're not blameless.

    Now if Malcolm pitches in (tee hee) then I can say, 'ta mac'.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    ydoethur said:

    So what is Starmerism?

    It seems to be the 2017 manifesto with the foreign policy aims of Ed mixed with the relative unity of Blair with the robustness of Brown

    We can't know, because he's come to the leadership in the middle of a huge crisis. There's very little scope for him to develop policy at this moment as it may be obsolete in five months. One of Cameron's problems was that having come up with a policy mix ('share the proceeds of growth') he was left floundering when the bad times hit and he needed to change it all.

    What does Starmer need to do, therefore?

    1) Provide a clear, consistent break with Corbyn, as Corbyn was a key part of the problem.

    2) Draw a line under the saga of Labour's Brexit policy (which let it not be forgotten, he was directly responsible for)

    3) Provide probing, intelligent opposition to make sure the government is held to account.

    4) Make sure he cannot be accused of making political capital out of the worst public health crisis in a hundred years

    5) Keep current Labour voters on board while ensuring he can reach out to non-voters.

    6) Look, sound and behave like a plausible Prime Minister - calm, dignified, unruffled and sensible.

    So how's he done so far?

    1) Long Bailey. Antisemitism. Praise for the Armed Forces. Mentions of national pride. Job done.

    2) We've left. End of conversation. Job also done.

    3) Performances in PMQs and with the media have generally been impressive. Johnson has been forced to get better quick (although he has) and the media are giving him a fair hearing. Comments are sensible and measured. Most people will have agreed with his assessments of Cummings and Jenrick, but he did not call for their resignation.

    4) Has offered to help the government, and supported many key measures. Admittedly, the offers have not been gratefully received, but he's doing the right thing and I think people appreciate that. He (and Sturgeon for the matter of that) were pitch perfect in their response to the news of Johnson's illness.

    5) Knelt for BLM protests, but condemned the statue toppling by saying there is a right way and a wrong way to protest (at the same time noting he would personally prefer the statue to have been moved).

    6) The rest feed into this.

    He's still behind Johnson on leader ratings. No shit, he's not the PM and Johnson is. The incumbent always has an advantage. But he's narrowed the gap substantially and if he continues like this, people will be willing to give him a hearing. That's all he can do.

    So far, so impressive. Again, not to say he will win - formidable barriers face him - but he is what Labour so desperately needed after Corbyn.
    A very good post
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    edited June 27

    Polls released this week have him trailing in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, N Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia – and Texas.... Both Betfair (fixed odds) and Paddy Power are offering 6/1 that Trump will win between 101-150 Electoral College votes, which is exactly where he’d end up if he lost the above nine states.

    If I've got this right you can get him below 150 without Georgia (or alternatively without NC), as long as Biden gets Texas:
    https://www.270towin.com/maps/zLgOb

    I had a go at doing it without Texas but it's tough:
    https://www.270towin.com/maps/9m9Z0

    So Trump below 150 is pretty near equivalent to "Biden wins TX".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 31,176
    It's quite difficult to see a way back for Trump now. Tulsa showed that the campaign rallies are going to be much more difficult and less dynamic than in 2016. No wonder he looked miserable afterwards.

    The Covid situation is really bad and still getting worse. His policies of denial, premature opening and federal chaos are going to look unforgiveable if the cases keep coming. The US already has a much worse infection rate than us although a lower death rate. I wonder if the excess mortality figures might show an even worse figure.

    His strength was the economy but he faces going into the election with record unemployment and a deep recession. This is despite an almost reckless disregard for the federal deficit throughout his tenure.

    America is a deeply divided country and the antics of BLM protesters will rile many but I think independents have had enough.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I am not convinced either of 'build build build' (depending what is meant by that exhortation I suppose) or of the need for a stimulus package. We need to be very careful with both. Hopefully the lessons from Brown's pointless VAT reduction have been noted.

    Hey, we are currently mired in scandal about property development. What should we do?

    Make a speech about building...
    Johnson's bricking it.
    I am mortarfied by that pun.
    It's cementing my reputation for excellence.

    (Am I stretchering a point there?)
    As falt goes you're not blameless.

    Now if Malcolm pitches in (tee hee) then I can say, 'ta mac'.
    I like to think a punning contest on building could be a bond between us all.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,333

    Scott_xP said:
    Why would anyone be so stupid as to think we should not be seeking advice from Germany and other nations for an as yet covid app that works in any country 100%
    No one thinks that, Big_G.
    Except Hancock until yesterday, apparently.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599
    DavidL said:

    The Covid situation is really bad and still getting worse. His policies of denial, premature opening and federal chaos are going to look unforgiveable if the cases keep coming. The US already has a much worse infection rate than us although a lower death rate. I wonder if the excess mortality figures might show an even worse figure.

    His aversion to masks is a key factor. Even Cheney thinks he is being a Dick

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,056

    I have Steve Baker as my MP.
    I do not want to have to vote for him again.

    Steve "Brexit Hardman" Baker is the only tory I have any time for at all. I still would not vote for the fucker at gun point though.
Sign In or Register to comment.