Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Oh, and the rest of us at having the serious risk of four more years of this psychotic in the White House.
Has US politics ever been in a worse state
I offer 1860 - four candidates, two from one party. Ended in a civil war.
I also offer 1805, when the Vice President murdered the former Secretary to the Treasury.
Honourable mentions -1920, Harding (worst speaker ever) up against Cox (who lost by 26 points) and Debs (who was in prison for sedition at the time). Also 1968 - one assassination, one popular winner disallowed in favour of a party hack, one criminal elected and chaos breaking out everywhere, plus a major unwinnable war in Vietnam.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
For the benefit of OGH, can I hurriedly point out the answer to the question is ‘no?’
Massive win for Sanders and really, is it not all over? I can't see any of the current field giving him a real challenge on Super Tuesday. Which leaves Bloomberg and his big money operation. I really can't think of anything that Sanders will be happier running against than a self indulgent and fairly rigid billionaire trying to buy the nomination. Its set up for him. By not winnowing the field more effectively the moderates have lost. Yet more self indulgence.
So Sanders v Trump. My money is on Trump but I take Nick's point. I know diddly squat about what makes Americans vote the way they do.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Robertson is proxy Sturgeon, Cherry is Salmonite.
Salmonites think Nicla is being too cautious re Indy ref 2.
Neither wing gives a monkeys about the domestic agenda.
If Sanders turns the election into a referendum on the American health care system, as well as corporate tax rates, he has a decent shot. Not fantastic, but it's a Michigan friendly pitch.
If it becomes a referendum on his three houses and his praise for the Soviet system on his visit there in 1988, however...
Do Americans resent someone having 3 houses? We were telling each other a few days ago that they didn't mind billionaires, and a few million will get you 3 nice rural places in the States. As for what he said in 1988 about the Soviet Union (which disappeared soon after), do voters under 50 care?
Depends on whether he tells them they can’t have three houses as well.
I don’t think anyone would have objected to Labour’s policies on private schools had not a large chunk of the Shadow Cabinet and a very high proportion of their children been privately educated.
People don’t mind wealth and success nearly as much as they do hypocrisy.
I think accusations of hypocrisy are a particularly British obsession, Americans are less bothered.
Americans are rarely embarrassed by wealth, though do quite like a backstory of humble origins as that validates the idea of the American Dream.
Whilst I was in the US I read an interesting book called ‘White Trash’ which, despite its tabloid-ish title, was actually a serious history book arguing that the image of settlers all claiming their acre of land and founding a classless, democratic society where any of them might make it to the top, which permeates the American dream, is almost entirely a myth.
She (the professor author) looks at the white settlers that came over, many as indentured servants only marginally better off than slaves during their indenture, and the wealthy families mostly from Britain who instantly took up power and most of the land, and argues that American society was stratified into privilege and servitude from the very beginning. In later chapters she goes on to argue that social mobility within the US was and remains pretty limited,
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
If Sanders turns the election into a referendum on the American health care system, as well as corporate tax rates, he has a decent shot. Not fantastic, but it's a Michigan friendly pitch.
If it becomes a referendum on his three houses and his praise for the Soviet system on his visit there in 1988, however...
Do Americans resent someone having 3 houses? We were telling each other a few days ago that they didn't mind billionaires, and a few million will get you 3 nice rural places in the States. As for what he said in 1988 about the Soviet Union (which disappeared soon after), do voters under 50 care?
Depends on whether he tells them they can’t have three houses as well.
I don’t think anyone would have objected to Labour’s policies on private schools had not a large chunk of the Shadow Cabinet and a very high proportion of their children been privately educated.
People don’t mind wealth and success nearly as much as they do hypocrisy.
I think accusations of hypocrisy are a particularly British obsession, Americans are less bothered.
Americans are rarely embarrassed by wealth, though do quite like a backstory of humble origins as that validates the idea of the American Dream.
Whilst I was in the US I read an interesting book called ‘White Trash’ which, despite its tabloid-ish title, was actually a serious history book arguing that the image of settlers all claiming their acre of land and founding a classless, democratic society where any of them might make it to the top, which permeates the American dream, is almost entirely a myth.
She (the professor author) looks at the white settlers that came over, many as indentured servants only marginally better off than slaves during their indenture, and the wealthy families mostly from Britain who instantly took up power and most of the land, and argues that American society was stratified into privilege and servitude from the very beginning. In later chapters she goes on to argue that social mobility within the US was and remains pretty limited,
Very interesting, particularly as the USA has such strong mythologising about its origins and destiny.
In Seattle, she addressed a crowd of around 7,000. A supporter asked her who she’d choose as a running mate if she were nominated.
“I would be presumptuous at this moment to talk about it, but what I can do is describe,” she said. “That is, I want to partner in this fight. That’s it.”
I know she was being asked who she'd like as her Number 2. But her response suggests she might be up for being VP herself. That would double down on the "change" message. But I think Sanders might be better off with Klobouchar, giving mid-West, moderate and gender balance.
Most nominees prefer a boring VP. Especially after Cheney.
If Sanders turns the election into a referendum on the American health care system, as well as corporate tax rates, he has a decent shot. Not fantastic, but it's a Michigan friendly pitch.
If it becomes a referendum on his three houses and his praise for the Soviet system on his visit there in 1988, however...
Do Americans resent someone having 3 houses? We were telling each other a few days ago that they didn't mind billionaires, and a few million will get you 3 nice rural places in the States. As for what he said in 1988 about the Soviet Union (which disappeared soon after), do voters under 50 care?
Depends on whether he tells them they can’t have three houses as well.
I don’t think anyone would have objected to Labour’s policies on private schools had not a large chunk of the Shadow Cabinet and a very high proportion of their children been privately educated.
People don’t mind wealth and success nearly as much as they do hypocrisy.
I think accusations of hypocrisy are a particularly British obsession, Americans are less bothered.
Americans are rarely embarrassed by wealth, though do quite like a backstory of humble origins as that validates the idea of the American Dream.
Bernie's USP has always been authenticity. He's always spouted what he does now, and his supporters love his consistency. He's always railed against "millionaires and billionaires". It's been noticed by everyone that he dropped the "millionaires" part. As Bloomberg noted, their favorite socialist is a millionaire with 3 homes - or 2 and a 'summer camp'. It smacks of hypocrisy and being part of the swamp. It is certainly a negative, but unlikely to make much difference in his support.
Why are they fighting over Edinburgh Central. Surely Renfrewshire North and West would be a safer bet for one of them?
Assuming the Green doesn't stand again Ed Central is a shoo in for the SNP.
worst case they will be on the list anyway, crazy for Cherry just after being elected to Westminster. Looks like the two of them will be scrapping to be next leader for certain.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Cherry wants to be First Minister. She has identified opposing the GRA reform (a SNP manifesto commitment) as a wedge issue with which she can form a faction to build a power base to become FM.
The SNP's stellar performance at the last Westminster General Election was a massive blow to her leadership campaign.
I offer 1860 - four candidates, two from one party. Ended in a civil war.
I also offer 1805, when the Vice President murdered the former Secretary to the Treasury.
Honourable mentions -1920, Harding (worst speaker ever) up against Cox (who lost by 26 points) and Debs (who was in prison for sedition at the time). Also 1968 - one assassination, one popular winner disallowed in favour of a party hack, one criminal elected and chaos breaking out everywhere, plus a major unwinnable war in Vietnam.
In Seattle, she addressed a crowd of around 7,000. A supporter asked her who she’d choose as a running mate if she were nominated.
“I would be presumptuous at this moment to talk about it, but what I can do is describe,” she said. “That is, I want to partner in this fight. That’s it.”
I know she was being asked who she'd like as her Number 2. But her response suggests she might be up for being VP herself. That would double down on the "change" message. But I think Sanders might be better off with Klobouchar, giving mid-West, moderate and gender balance.
SNP has more talent on show just for selection in one seat than all the unionist parties can raise in total.
In case you missed it yesterday, I did note that despite the SNP’s every effort to throw away their advantages Carlaw will simply not let them. He’ll find a way.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
If Sanders turns the election into a referendum on the American health care system, as well as corporate tax rates, he has a decent shot. Not fantastic, but it's a Michigan friendly pitch.
If it becomes a referendum on his three houses and his praise for the Soviet system on his visit there in 1988, however...
Do Americans resent someone having 3 houses? We were telling each other a few days ago that they didn't mind billionaires, and a few million will get you 3 nice rural places in the States. As for what he said in 1988 about the Soviet Union (which disappeared soon after), do voters under 50 care?
Depends on whether he tells them they can’t have three houses as well.
I don’t think anyone would have objected to Labour’s policies on private schools had not a large chunk of the Shadow Cabinet and a very high proportion of their children been privately educated.
People don’t mind wealth and success nearly as much as they do hypocrisy.
I think accusations of hypocrisy are a particularly British obsession, Americans are less bothered.
Americans are rarely embarrassed by wealth, though do quite like a backstory of humble origins as that validates the idea of the American Dream.
Whilst I was in the US I read an interesting book called ‘White Trash’ which, despite its tabloid-ish title, was actually a serious history book arguing that the image of settlers all claiming their acre of land and founding a classless, democratic society where any of them might make it to the top, which permeates the American dream, is almost entirely a myth.
She (the professor author) looks at the white settlers that came over, many as indentured servants only marginally better off than slaves during their indenture, and the wealthy families mostly from Britain who instantly took up power and most of the land, and argues that American society was stratified into privilege and servitude from the very beginning. In later chapters she goes on to argue that social mobility within the US was and remains pretty limited,
Oh, I agree that the American Dream is substantially a myth and that social mobility in the USA can be worse even than the UK. It is a particularly strong US myth though, so cannot be ignored.
Despite what the SPADs and Mekon in number 10 thinks, inheriting wealth is a much better at predicting success in life than IQ.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one.
A delicate point - could it be that PB collectively isn't very good at current US politics? There has been something of a consensus on here successively that Buttigieg, Warren and Klobouchar were value, and they're all going down in flames. Conversely, because of our UK bias we tend to think Sanders=Corbyn=defeat, and US politics is subtly different to the UK. US voters don't seem to mind elderly politicians (the issue is barely coming up) and despite months of Sanders being labelled as a crazy commie, he actually performs slightly better than most of the others in polls vs Trump.
I worry on his behalf too about the impact of full-fat Trump assault on him if he's the nominee. But it's possible that (a) ANY Democrat will struggle vs Trump and (b) Sanders' macho working-class appeal (he does best among men and among less-educated voters) is what's needed to take on Trump, rather than the more elegant appeal of, say, Buttigieg.
I think Sanders does need good advice on tempering his health care plan to make it clear that he won't scrap private plans until Medicare for All is in place (which frankly might be never if Congress doesn't change radically), but reports from Nevada (where the issue featured in a big way with a prominent union defending their private plan) suggest that people aren't impressed with the cost and limitations of their private health care, so it may not be the killer argument tat we suppose.
Well done, Nick. I try on this - I bust a gut - but people are far more likely to listen to you. Although TBH I rather want the consensus that Trump inevitably hammers Bernie to stay in place. All the better for betting and superforecasting against it. More profits. More kudos.
In Seattle, she addressed a crowd of around 7,000. A supporter asked her who she’d choose as a running mate if she were nominated.
“I would be presumptuous at this moment to talk about it, but what I can do is describe,” she said. “That is, I want to partner in this fight. That’s it.”
I know she was being asked who she'd like as her Number 2. But her response suggests she might be up for being VP herself. That would double down on the "change" message. But I think Sanders might be better off with Klobouchar, giving mid-West, moderate and gender balance.
Stacy Abrams?
That would seem massively more likely than Kolbuchar... I am not a pundit, but what I do know (is this), I am the only one on the debate stage when asked, 'Do you have a problem with a socialist leading the Democratic ticket?' ... (that said) 'Yes.' ...
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
.
.
I thought Ruth had said she was standing down? But also she only won the seat by the skin of her teeth with a Green standing who won thousands of votes so she hardly has a lock on the seat.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Nick, all just sad unionist losers innuendo. Unlike the Westminster parties differences of opinions are allowed in SNP, it is not run as a dictatorship with you getting your jotters if you do not slavishly follow the turnip in charge. Basically unionists are fuming that the SNP keep getting more popular and people are not believing the lies from the unionist duffers and their tame MSM any more.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one.
Johnson keeps blocking it...
The most obvious route was the EU. He certainly blocked that.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
For the benefit of OGH, can I hurriedly point out the answer to the question is ‘no?’
pm a libellous one please, I have yet to see anything
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
That would seem massively more likely than Kolbuchar... I am not a pundit, but what I do know (is this), I am the only one on the debate stage when asked, 'Do you have a problem with a socialist leading the Democratic ticket?' ... (that said) 'Yes.' ...
I'm on Abrams at 10. Fun bet only though. Just a few quid. You want to balance the ticket but also be sympatico with your running mate.
Hey, you're not one of these "Trump crushes Sanders because Johnson crushed Corbyn" merchants, are you? Please say you aren't.
SNP has more talent on show just for selection in one seat than all the unionist parties can raise in total.
In case you missed it yesterday, I did note that despite the SNP’s every effort to throw away their advantages Carlaw will simply not let them. He’ll find a way.
Carcrash was a great choice for the talentless Scottish sub regional office Tories. That anyone could think that clown could ever be FM is just amazing, the idiot could not run a bath.
A delicate point - could it be that PB collectively isn't very good at current US politics? There has been something of a consensus on here successively that Buttigieg, Warren and Klobouchar were value, and they're all going down in flames. Conversely, because of our UK bias we tend to think Sanders=Corbyn=defeat, and US politics is subtly different to the UK. US voters don't seem to mind elderly politicians (the issue is barely coming up) and despite months of Sanders being labelled as a crazy commie, he actually performs slightly better than most of the others in polls vs Trump.
I worry on his behalf too about the impact of full-fat Trump assault on him if he's the nominee. But it's possible that (a) ANY Democrat will struggle vs Trump and (b) Sanders' macho working-class appeal (he does best among men and among less-educated voters) is what's needed to take on Trump, rather than the more elegant appeal of, say, Buttigieg.
I think Sanders does need good advice on tempering his health care plan to make it clear that he won't scrap private plans until Medicare for All is in place (which frankly might be never if Congress doesn't change radically), but reports from Nevada (where the issue featured in a big way with a prominent union defending their private plan) suggest that people aren't impressed with the cost and limitations of their private health care, so it may not be the killer argument tat we suppose.
Well done, Nick. I try on this - I bust a gut - but people are far more likely to listen to you. Although TBH I rather want the consensus that Trump inevitably hammers Bernie to stay in place. All the better for betting and superforecasting against it. More profits. More kudos.
I don’t think anything is inevitable (and I put money on Sanders for President last night, as the odds provide value); I just think Sanders gives Trump a better chance. And just as importantly, gives the Republicans a significantly better chance of holding the Senate.
As for Nick’s critique, I’d note that @rcs1000 , among others, said Sanders ought to favourite well before Nevada - and the value some of us have seen has been genuine value, as long odds have provided excellent trading opportunities. On the larger point, he is not wrong, though.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
.
.
I thought Ruth had said she was standing down? But also she only won the seat by the skin of her teeth with a Green standing who won thousands of votes so she hardly has a lock on the seat.
She has said that she was standing down at the next election, not imminently. If Boris appoints her to the Lords she has a good precedent in Salmond who was an MP and MSP at the same time (twice, as I recall). If, however, she was appointed Scottish Secretary I think there would be a bye election. And I agree that her's was a remarkable and unexpected win. The Tories would not be favourites to keep the seat.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma. PS: Robertson is the next leader as long as he does not just show himself as a clone of Sturgeon. He has far more talent but people are getting fed up and beginning to think current leadership are getting fat and happy with the current status quo.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
.
.
I thought Ruth had said she was standing down? But also she only won the seat by the skin of her teeth with a Green standing who won thousands of votes so she hardly has a lock on the seat.
She has said that she was standing down at the next election, not imminently. If Boris appoints her to the Lords she has a good precedent in Salmond who was an MP and MSP at the same time (twice, as I recall). If, however, she was appointed Scottish Secretary I think there would be a bye election. And I agree that her's was a remarkable and unexpected win. The Tories would not be favourites to keep the seat.
Given the next election is little more than a year away its six of one and half a dozen of another to me as to when the vacancy occurs.
A delicate point - could it be that PB collectively isn't very good at current US politics? There has been something of a consensus on here successively that Buttigieg, Warren and Klobouchar were value, and they're all going down in flames. Conversely, because of our UK bias we tend to think Sanders=Corbyn=defeat, and US politics is subtly different to the UK. US voters don't seem to mind elderly politicians (the issue is barely coming up) and despite months of Sanders being labelled as a crazy commie, he actually performs slightly better than most of the others in polls vs Trump.
I worry on his behalf too about the impact of full-fat Trump assault on him if he's the nominee. But it's possible that (a) ANY Democrat will struggle vs Trump and (b) Sanders' macho working-class appeal (he does best among men and among less-educated voters) is what's needed to take on Trump, rather than the more elegant appeal of, say, Buttigieg.
I think Sanders does need good advice on tempering his health care plan to make it clear that he won't scrap private plans until Medicare for All is in place (which frankly might be never if Congress doesn't change radically), but reports from Nevada (where the issue featured in a big way with a prominent union defending their private plan) suggest that people aren't impressed with the cost and limitations of their private health care, so it may not be the killer argument tat we suppose.
Unfortunately Sanders is going to get trounced like Corbyn but people such as your good self won't see it till it is too late so we will end up with Johnson and Trump.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
They really are buggering it up aren't they? The iron party discipline is disintegrating. Eek.
Yes they are really struggling , 48 out of 59 MP's, polls showing over 50% support for upcoming Holyrood elections and another landslide , and they are doing it deliberately.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma.
I agree about his lack of talent but he was the man in position, in the Parliament, Financial Secretary and apparently Nicola's chosen one.
The fact he rose so high rather undermines your argument about the SNP having an excess of talent. They are actually stronger in Westminster and Robertson is highly competent but the current Scottish government is just embarrassingly inept. As is the opposition in fairness. Scotland is very poorly governed with no obvious alternative. It's a problem.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Oh, and the rest of us at having the serious risk of four more years of this psychotic in the White House.
Has US politics ever been in a worse state
It’s no worse than the UK!
That is plainly absurd
Johnson = Trump Labour = Sanders So not absurd unless one is a fawning disciple of Johnson.
Bitter remainers trying to paint Boris as Trump is all they have left
It’s nothing to do with remain or leave it’s taking a cold detached look at the individuals involved who share many character traits and political tactics.
A delicate point - could it be that PB collectively isn't very good at current US politics? There has been something of a consensus on here successively that Buttigieg, Warren and Klobouchar were value, and they're all going down in flames. Conversely, because of our UK bias we tend to think Sanders=Corbyn=defeat, and US politics is subtly different to the UK. US voters don't seem to mind elderly politicians (the issue is barely coming up) and despite months of Sanders being labelled as a crazy commie, he actually performs slightly better than most of the others in polls vs Trump.
I worry on his behalf too about the impact of full-fat Trump assault on him if he's the nominee. But it's possible that (a) ANY Democrat will struggle vs Trump and (b) Sanders' macho working-class appeal (he does best among men and among less-educated voters) is what's needed to take on Trump, rather than the more elegant appeal of, say, Buttigieg.
I think Sanders does need good advice on tempering his health care plan to make it clear that he won't scrap private plans until Medicare for All is in place (which frankly might be never if Congress doesn't change radically), but reports from Nevada (where the issue featured in a big way with a prominent union defending their private plan) suggest that people aren't impressed with the cost and limitations of their private health care, so it may not be the killer argument tat we suppose.
Well done, Nick. I try on this - I bust a gut - but people are far more likely to listen to you. Although TBH I rather want the consensus that Trump inevitably hammers Bernie to stay in place. All the better for betting and superforecasting against it. More profits. More kudos.
Buttigieg has been value. He had almost no chance a few months ago. Now he is second in delegates.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma. PS: Robertson is the next leader as long as he does not just show himself as a clone of Sturgeon. He has far more talent but people are getting fed up and beginning to think current leadership are getting fat and happy with the current status quo.
Maybe they should do their day job which they are failing at rather than internal fighting over power bases
The next month looks like a shambles for the SNP and will Nicola survive
They really are buggering it up aren't they? The iron party discipline is disintegrating. Eek.
Yes they are really struggling , 48 out of 59 MP's, polls showing over 50% support for upcoming Holyrood elections and another landslide , and they are doing it deliberately.
Is Angus trying to get back as an MSP to give the SNP options when they need to replace Sturgeon.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
.
.
I thought Ruth had said she was standing down? But also she only won the seat by the skin of her teeth with a Green standing who won thousands of votes so she hardly has a lock on the seat.
She will not embarrass herself by being trounced, it will be the easy lucrative option via the arse lickers route to HoL for her. No need for scrutiny by electorate, she will use old boy network.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma.
I agree about his lack of talent but he was the man in position, in the Parliament, Financial Secretary and apparently Nicola's chosen one.
The fact he rose so high rather undermines your argument about the SNP having an excess of talent. They are actually stronger in Westminster and Robertson is highly competent but the current Scottish government is just embarrassingly inept. As is the opposition in fairness. Scotland is very poorly governed with no obvious alternative. It's a problem.
Nicola has supported two deeply flawed individuals - is she corrupt or deeply naive ?
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
They really are buggering it up aren't they? The iron party discipline is disintegrating. Eek.
Yes they are really struggling , 48 out of 59 MP's, polls showing over 50% support for upcoming Holyrood elections and another landslide , and they are doing it deliberately.
Is Angus trying to get back as an MSP to give the SNP options when they need to replace Sturgeon.
Otherwise this makes little sense...
Yes. It's a race back to Edinburgh to be in place when the fall happens. It sort of reminds me of those Nazgols in Lord of the Rings racing back to Mount Doom when they realise Frodo has dropped the ring in the volcano.
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Oh, and the rest of us at having the serious risk of four more years of this psychotic in the White House.
Has US politics ever been in a worse state
It’s no worse than the UK!
That is plainly absurd
Johnson = Trump Labour = Sanders So not absurd unless one is a fawning disciple of Johnson.
Bitter remainers trying to paint Boris as Trump is all they have left
It’s nothing to do with remain or leave it’s taking a cold detached look at the individuals involved who share many character traits and political tactics.
Of course it is. If Boris was an ardent fan of the EU you would be singing his praises
Biden can come back in SC off the back of this, Buttigieg's black voter numbers are going to bury him there
I say this because they are a similar price. Buttigieg will fly out in SC I think
Yep. Pete, has been very honest about his performances not being good enough so far
But even if he drops out after SC, I'm not sure most of his voters will go to Biden, I think a lot of them will go to Warren who attracts a lot of college educated whites.
As a side it is interesting how many poc in the dem Primaries identify as moderate/conservative vs.whites
I wouldn't masquerade as a regular Boris supporter, but in fairness he's perfectly capable of mastering a complex brief if he wants to. He rang me out of the blue (in my day job capacity) when he was preparing to stand for the leadership to ask for a briefing on live exports, as he was going to write a Telegraph piece on the issue. We talked for about 15 minutes on the detail and it all appeared a couple of days later, entirely accurately summarised.
The difference from Mrs T is perhaps that she positively liked absorbing lots of detail about everything, whereas he is, I think, somewhat more selective.
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
Which candidate do you favour Malc?
I like both, but Robertson is my favourite for next SNP leader, unless Alex could make a comeback which is highly unlikely. He looks and talks the part.
They really are buggering it up aren't they? The iron party discipline is disintegrating. Eek.
Yes they are really struggling , 48 out of 59 MP's, polls showing over 50% support for upcoming Holyrood elections and another landslide , and they are doing it deliberately.
Is Angus trying to get back as an MSP to give the SNP options when they need to replace Sturgeon.
They really are buggering it up aren't they? The iron party discipline is disintegrating. Eek.
Yes they are really struggling , 48 out of 59 MP's, polls showing over 50% support for upcoming Holyrood elections and another landslide , and they are doing it deliberately.
Is Angus trying to get back as an MSP to give the SNP options when they need to replace Sturgeon.
Otherwise this makes little sense...
Yes. It's a race back to Edinburgh to be in place when the fall happens. It sort of reminds me of those Nazgols in Lord of the Rings racing back to Mount Doom when they realise Frodo has dropped the ring in the volcano.
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
Which candidate do you favour Malc?
unless Alex could make a comeback which is highly unlikely. .
Convicts will now have the vote in Scotland malc - next step is to allow them to stand for office..
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma. PS: Robertson is the next leader as long as he does not just show himself as a clone of Sturgeon. He has far more talent but people are getting fed up and beginning to think current leadership are getting fat and happy with the current status quo.
Maybe they should do their day job which they are failing at rather than internal fighting over power bases
The next month looks like a shambles for the SNP and will Nicola survive
G, on almost every measure Scotland under the SNP is doing better than England despite all the obstacles flung at them, all this unionist crap about doing their day job is a real joke given the state of the UK and Boris in hiding.
But of course, if you have a dislike for the USA, and long for the decline and fall of the the US empire, what is there not to like about four more years? Look at the long term mess baby trump will make to the economy, the deficit and foreign affairs in those four more years 😁.
The bottom line is people who are not Conservatives have taken over the Conservative vote. In the cold light of tomorrow history books will record this as the beginning of the end of Conservative dominance and the return to liberalism. 😌
I'm not the first to say this, but why does the market still have Sanders as almost evens?
Because they can’t quite believe the Dems would be so fucking stupid as to pick a 79 year old Socialist with a heart condition who isn’t even a Dem to go up against a nutcase like Trump that they really, really need to beat?
Indeed, hence the market that’s 11% under-round. Sanders should be at least a 65% chance rather than 52%.
Oh, and the rest of us at having the serious risk of four more years of this psychotic in the White House.
Many thanks for your concern. I am as red on Sanders as a very red thing.
Looks like I am going to take a beating. Just can't believe Dems are this stupid.
I am beginning to wonder whether USA is having a massive collective breakdown.
Would Sanders be a good president? If not, which Dem candidate would be better?
Personally, I would say he would obviously be better than Trump, and probably better than most of the previous presidents. Which suggests that if they are having a breakdown it's been going on for quite some time.
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
Which candidate do you favour Malc?
I like both, but Robertson is my favourite for next SNP leader, unless Alex could make a comeback which is highly unlikely. He looks and talks the part.
I can absolutely see Salmond having the neck to come back as Leader, just to prove how much he has been vindicated by a Not Guilty verdict.
He probably has enough neck if it comes back Not Proven.....
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma. PS: Robertson is the next leader as long as he does not just show himself as a clone of Sturgeon. He has far more talent but people are getting fed up and beginning to think current leadership are getting fat and happy with the current status quo.
Maybe they should do their day job which they are failing at rather than internal fighting over power bases
The next month looks like a shambles for the SNP and will Nicola survive
G, on almost every measure Scotland under the SNP is doing better than England despite all the obstacles flung at them, all this unionist crap about doing their day job is a real joke given the state of the UK and Boris in hiding.
Apart from secondary education, hospital building, bridge building and ferry building.
Can anyone give (or link to) a non-libellous non-contempt-of-court summary of what's happening in Scottish politics? I know about the Salmond case, but have only vaguely heard some umours about Sturgeon, and there seems to be some factional rivalry in the SNP too. What's up?
There have been rumours for some time that Nicola was looking for an international exit but not finding one. The SNP are split between those that want a referendum right now and those who want to do things properly with Westminster consent. The latter also recognise that right now might not be the best time and want a better indication than the polls are giving that a second referendum might pass.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
David, Mackay was always a lightweight, how he ever got to where he was is a mystery. He was never ever going to be leader in a month of Sundays for many reasons including serious lack of talent and charisma.
I agree about his lack of talent but he was the man in position, in the Parliament, Financial Secretary and apparently Nicola's chosen one.
The fact he rose so high rather undermines your argument about the SNP having an excess of talent. They are actually stronger in Westminster and Robertson is highly competent but the current Scottish government is just embarrassingly inept. As is the opposition in fairness. Scotland is very poorly governed with no obvious alternative. It's a problem.
David, you always get a few lightweights and pet placements, just look at Westminster cabinet to see how bad it can really get. I am not a Sturgeon fan but the SNP are doing a far better job of running Scotland than their equivalent UK counterparts. SNP is much much bigger than Sturgeon.
Bitter remainers trying to paint Boris as Trump is all they have left
Well you know I'm not a bitter Remainer so let me give you my take -
Trump is a borderline moron and is wholly malevolent in spirit. Johnson is neither of those things. There is simply no comparison.
But a big thing they do have in common is being in politics purely for their own gratification - i.e. an absence of integrity or sense of public service.
And Johnson is certainly lifting some techniques from the Trump playbook.
But of course, if you have a dislike for the USA, and long for the decline and fall of the the US empire, what is there not to like about four more years? Look at the long term mess baby trump will make to the economy, the deficit and foreign affairs in those four more years 😁.
The bottom line is people who are not Conservatives have taken over the Conservative vote. In the cold light of tomorrow history books will record this as the beginning of the end of Conservative dominance and the return to liberalism. 😌
Far more likely it will be seen as humanity losing the last chance to avoid catastrophic global overheating and the collapse of civilization.
Ooh, an SNP civil war over a marginal seat selection.
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
It is called competition , where do you get "civil war" from. Luckily the SNP have so much talent it is unlike the Westminster parties in not having to put up any old donkey or lickspittle chum they can drag of the streets.
Which candidate do you favour Malc?
I like both, but Robertson is my favourite for next SNP leader, unless Alex could make a comeback which is highly unlikely. He looks and talks the part.
As a Unionist Robertson is the one I would fear. He would come closest to building the broader consensus that Salmond went for. Sturgeon has gone more to the left which has given the SNP control of the central belt (and hence the Scottish Parliament) but would struggle to get a majority for independence. I knew Cherry slightly during her time at the bar. She's not overly ebullient.
That the security services do not trust the Home Sec?
.
It's not surprising since she was sacked for running her own foreign policy with Israel from a different department.
The pb.com tories were mostly Maybots at that point and dutifully lined to up to stick the boot into Priti Woman with the same fervour with which they now salute her.
Comments
This is going to be like like watching the feminists and the trans activists having a discussion over Labour Party policy - something best done from as far away as possible!
I also offer 1805, when the Vice President murdered the former Secretary to the Treasury.
Honourable mentions -1920, Harding (worst speaker ever) up against Cox (who lost by 26 points) and Debs (who was in prison for sedition at the time). Also 1968 - one assassination, one popular winner disallowed in favour of a party hack, one criminal elected and chaos breaking out everywhere, plus a major unwinnable war in Vietnam.
L
So Sanders v Trump. My money is on Trump but I take Nick's point. I know diddly squat about what makes Americans vote the way they do.
Salmonites think Nicla is being too cautious re Indy ref 2.
Neither wing gives a monkeys about the domestic agenda.
She (the professor author) looks at the white settlers that came over, many as indentured servants only marginally better off than slaves during their indenture, and the wealthy families mostly from Britain who instantly took up power and most of the land, and argues that American society was stratified into privilege and servitude from the very beginning. In later chapters she goes on to argue that social mobility within the US was and remains pretty limited,
Minority Report.
The SNP's stellar performance at the last Westminster General Election was a massive blow to her leadership campaign.
Nicola leads the second group but Boris's blunt responses are making her look weak. When you add in the speculation about the possible fall out of the trial possible leadership candidates are desperate to get into Holyrood. This is likely to result in a serious competition for Ruth's seat between Robertson (the wait candidate) and Cherry (a let's go candidate). Of course there may not be a vacancy. There is no reason why Ruth should stand down unless she not only went the House of Lords but also took a government post. That's possible but far from certain.
A further frisson has been added to all this by the departure of Derek Mackay. He was the obvious heir apparent and would have been very hard to stop if a vacancy had occurred. His departure leaves no obvious or strong candidate in the Parliament. It has stepped up the urgency for both wings.
Despite what the SPADs and Mekon in number 10 thinks, inheriting wealth is a much better at predicting success in life than IQ.
I am not a pundit, but what I do know (is this), I am the only one on the debate stage when asked, 'Do you have a problem with a socialist leading the Democratic ticket?' ... (that said) 'Yes.' ...
I thought Ruth had said she was standing down?
But also she only won the seat by the skin of her teeth with a Green standing who won thousands of votes so she hardly has a lock on the seat.
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1231491268309549056?s=09
Labour = Sanders
So not absurd unless one is a fawning disciple of Johnson.
Hey, you're not one of these "Trump crushes Sanders because Johnson crushed Corbyn" merchants, are you? Please say you aren't.
As for Nick’s critique, I’d note that @rcs1000 , among others, said Sanders ought to favourite well before Nevada - and the value some of us have seen has been genuine value, as long odds have provided excellent trading opportunities.
On the larger point, he is not wrong, though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-49090804/trump-on-johnson-they-call-him-britain-trump
Looks like I am going to take a beating. Just can't believe Dems are this stupid.
I am beginning to wonder whether USA is having a massive collective breakdown.
PS: Robertson is the next leader as long as he does not just show himself as a clone of Sturgeon. He has far more talent but people are getting fed up and beginning to think current leadership are getting fat and happy with the current status quo.
I am sure that Henriques will score a century just to frustrate us, but it’s nice while it lasts.
They certainly have a talent for something..
I suspect not the only one at the heart of government who cannot be trusted with official intelligence.
I have an organ to play with. Have a good morning.
The fact he rose so high rather undermines your argument about the SNP having an excess of talent. They are actually stronger in Westminster and Robertson is highly competent but the current Scottish government is just embarrassingly inept. As is the opposition in fairness. Scotland is very poorly governed with no obvious alternative. It's a problem.
The next month looks like a shambles for the SNP and will Nicola survive
Otherwise this makes little sense...
You better tell me what they are.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1231506418638970880
But even if he drops out after SC, I'm not sure most of his voters will go to Biden, I think a lot of them will go to Warren who attracts a lot of college educated whites.
As a side it is interesting how many poc in the dem Primaries identify as moderate/conservative vs.whites
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1231320297250402305
The difference from Mrs T is perhaps that she positively liked absorbing lots of detail about everything, whereas he is, I think, somewhat more selective.
He looks and talks the part.
The bottom line is people who are not Conservatives have taken over the Conservative vote. In the cold light of tomorrow history books will record this as the beginning of the end of Conservative dominance and the return to liberalism. 😌
Personally, I would say he would obviously be better than Trump, and probably better than most of the previous presidents. Which suggests that if they are having a breakdown it's been going on for quite some time.
He probably has enough neck if it comes back Not Proven.....
SNP is much much bigger than Sturgeon.
Trump is a borderline moron and is wholly malevolent in spirit. Johnson is neither of those things. There is simply no comparison.
But a big thing they do have in common is being in politics purely for their own gratification - i.e. an absence of integrity or sense of public service.
And Johnson is certainly lifting some techniques from the Trump playbook.
The pb.com tories were mostly Maybots at that point and dutifully lined to up to stick the boot into Priti Woman with the same fervour with which they now salute her.