The Politics Thread 2020

[iniesta]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

By saying nothing about Trumps own record on race issues and instead focusing entirely on "issues" of those opposing him.

 

WRT the second sentence, apologies for the lack of clarity - the meaning is that while a lot of people (including myself) is debating idpol, the Earth isn't going to hang around waiting for us to decide which style of shaved primate is the best before it might send us a reminder that none of us are.

Im not a fan of Trump, just find the hypocrisy of those willing Biden on a little sickening. 

 

You honestly beleive the earth will be saved by sleepy Joe? 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, iniesta said:

Im not a fan of Trump, just find the hypocrisy of those willing Biden on a little sickening. 

 

You honestly beleive the earth will be saved by sleepy Joe? 

Maybe, maybe not - he's certainly not what you'd call an ideal candidate and it may be that nothing we do can help at this point.

 

However, we still have to try, and in terms of both being able to reduce the political polarisation that is crippling scientific policy in the US just when it is most needed and the scientific policy decisions themselves the Dem platform - that just so happens to be headed by Biden - is far better than that of Trump and the Republicans.

Edited 25 August 2020 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

Joe Biden really is a poor candidate to be fair, I can’t believe after the absolute horror show the 2016 election they went with what is ultimately a worse version of Hillary Clinton. It feels like a Republican presidency in 2024 is almost guaranteed either way really.

Hillary is the antichrist to be fair, I don't think you'll find a more toxic candidate, not even Biden.

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

Hillary is the antichrist to be fair, I don't think you'll find a more toxic candidate, not even Biden.

Lionator alot of peeps believe in the anti christ, Satan thing.......what's your thoughts?

[Finnaldo]

21 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Hillary is the antichrist to be fair, I don't think you'll find a more toxic candidate, not even Biden.

Biden also has the advantage that Trump is no longer just a joke candidate to the electorate tbf 

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Finnaldo said:

Biden also has the advantage that Trump is no longer just a joke candidate to the electorate tbf 

Yeah. This election is a referendum on Trump as much as anything else, and regardless of what someone thinks of his policy at least everyone is pretty clear about what exactly he stands for now.

 

So many people are saying it's 2016 all over again but there are many notable differences - that's one of the biggest.

[ozleicester]

This bozo will be running your trade board

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/people/2020/08/26/tony-abbott-british-trade-envoy/

He is the man that...

 

After Oz had done away with knighthoods... reinstated them and awarded the first one to....  Prince Phillip 

 

When talking about the death of an Aussie officer in Afghanistan, responded with.. "I guess sometimes shit happens"

 

When discussing a price/tax on carbon "What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it's going to go up in price..."

 

During a radio show Q+A, Abbott lewdly winks after a caller tells him she has been forced to work on an adult sex hotline to pay for rising medical costs.
 

 

if you thought brexit was a fck up before, wait till this onion munching lunatic gets involved

 

Good luck  

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

[Facecloth]

Ed Davey named new Lib Dem leader. 

[Alf Bentley]

40 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Ed Davey named new Lib Dem leader. 

 

Will be interesting to see which policy areas he prioritises and what his strategy is to make the LDs significant players in the game.

 

My instinct is that he's got his work cut out. He seems competent enough, but lacking in inspiration or charisma and won't get much publicity for a long time, unless he can somehow set an agenda item or two.

Plus, in seeking to make inroads mainly against the Tories in the SE/SW & in university towns, he'll be competing with a somewhat similar rival in Starmer (sensible, competent, moderate, pro-European) - but Starmer is already getting known and will get more media coverage.

 

Any idea how he'll seek to make progress - or make inroads in other parts of the country, @LiberalFox?

[The Horse's Mouth]

Lib Dems are dead, they had their chance and blew it

[StanSP]

Shades of Trump... 

 

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Will be interesting to see which policy areas he prioritises and what his strategy is to make the LDs significant players in the game.

 

My instinct is that he's got his work cut out. He seems competent enough, but lacking in inspiration or charisma and won't get much publicity for a long time, unless he can somehow set an agenda item or two.

Plus, in seeking to make inroads mainly against the Tories in the SE/SW & in university towns, he'll be competing with a somewhat similar rival in Starmer (sensible, competent, moderate, pro-European) - but Starmer is already getting known and will get more media coverage.

 

Any idea how he'll seek to make progress - or make inroads in other parts of the country, @LiberalFox?

 

It seems impossible. They turned themselves into a single issue party on the wrong end of that issue so it's hard to see an avenue to pivot now. Their vote is so strongly correlated with income so it almost seems that the best strategy is to be the party for Waitrose shoppers that are supposed to vote Conservative but are pissed off with Brexit. But if they continue being a bastardised hybrid of non-Corbyn Labour and the Greens on non-Brexit policy means then they'll soon depart when they get over themselves about Brexit.

 

Looking at the latest YouGov poll (back to a 7 point lead) more 2019 LDs are voting Labour than LD. Starmer is a 2019 LD wet dream, at least until he actually has to stand for something and have a policy. Survation did a poll of 16-18 year olds, the Lib Dems were on 6% behind the Greens. As ever, they've got to go down the localism route and hope they can build some sort of national platform off that. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

It'll be a close one but I can see Trump coming away victorious again.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It'll be a close one but I can see Trump coming away victorious again.

Every time I see words like this being posted here I have to ask the same question - why?

 

I honestly don't get the reasoning beyond "just a hunch" when it's not 2016 anymore, the polling data is what it is and Trump has to overcome high single-digit poll deficits in at least five key states (Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Penn and Michigan) to stand a chance. I'm actually genuinely interested in an answer that doesn't come down to gut feelings.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Every time I see words like this being posted here I have to ask the same question - why?

 

I honestly don't get the reasoning beyond "just a hunch" when it's not 2016 anymore, the polling data is what it is and Trump has to overcome high single-digit poll deficits in at least five key states (Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Penn and Michigan) to stand a chance. I'm actually genuinely interested in an answer that doesn't come down to gut feelings.

I knew you'd reply to my post

 

Isn't the polling this time more in favour of Trump than it was last time? They had him further behind last time and he still came out victorious. The ones I saw anyway.

 

Add in the fact that people who vote Trump won't always tell you when being asked by pollsters, they'll say Biden or no-one, but in fact will vote for Trump.

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Every time I see words like this being posted here I have to ask the same question - why?

 

I honestly don't get the reasoning beyond "just a hunch" when it's not 2016 anymore, the polling data is what it is and Trump has to overcome high single-digit poll deficits in at least five key states (Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Penn and Michigan) to stand a chance. I'm actually genuinely interested in an answer that doesn't come down to gut feelings.

I can see one glaring thing in a recent YouGov poll. 68% of Trump supporters are enthusiastic about him compared to 40% for Biden. Now as YouGov point out, that's a rise for Biden and 57% (62% before) say their vote for Biden is mostly a vote against Trump. 

 

He still has an advantage on the economy and I'm confident there's an element of shy-Trump in the polls as there has been here in the past with shy-Tories. As Robert Cahaly says, this is probably more pronounced than in 2016 given that the worst that would have been said about you for voting Trump then is probably the best that would be said about you now. Not saying that's sufficient to overcome the gap but it's not inconceivable that could be if other things start to tick in his favour (

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I knew you'd reply to my post

 

Isn't the polling this time more in favour of Trump than it was last time? They had him further behind last time and he still came out victorious. The ones I saw anyway.

 

Add in the fact that people who vote Trump won't always tell you when being asked by pollsters, they'll say Biden or no-one, but in fact will vote for Trump.

All in the cause of greater understanding, mon ami

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-national-polls-2020-vs-2016/

 

Since mid-May other than for one tiny spot, no - Biden's lead has almost always been more consistent, up until the present date in both races, anyway.

 

And the "Bradley Effect" (it does in fact have a name) has been much more analysed and accounted for in terms of polling data recently than it was before.

 

Put simply, I have no reason to suspect the polls are incorrect this time round, and the only variable is that there's still over two months to go before the election itself and given the year we've had two months is a very long time in politics.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

I can see one glaring thing in a recent YouGov poll. 68% of Trump supporters are enthusiastic about him compared to 40% for Biden. Now as YouGov point out, that's a rise for Biden and 57% (62% before) say their vote for Biden is mostly a vote against Trump. 

 

He still has an advantage on the economy and I'm confident there's an element of shy-Trump in the polls as there has been here in the past with shy-Tories. As Robert Cahaly says, this is probably more pronounced than in 2016 given that the worst that would have been said about you for voting Trump then is probably the best that would be said about you now. Not saying that's sufficient to overcome the gap but it's not inconceivable that could be if other things start to tick in his favour (

There is most certainly an element of voting for Biden merely to get Trump out going on, but I don't think that will have much of an effect on the landscape considering the degree of polarisation Trump has inflicted will increase turnout just to get him out anyway.

 

See point above about the Bradley Effect and I don't actually think it plays as big a role as some might say it does - Trumps success in 2016 wasn't totally consistent with a "shy Trump" effect: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/shy-voters-probably-arent-why-the-polls-missed-trump/

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All in the cause of greater understanding, mon ami

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-national-polls-2020-vs-2016/

 

Since mid-May other than for one tiny spot, no - Biden's lead has almost always been more consistent, up until the present date in both races, anyway.

 

And the "Bradley Effect" (it does in fact have a name) has been much more analysed and accounted for in terms of polling data recently than it was before.

 

Put simply, I have no reason to suspect the polls are incorrect this time round, and the only variable is that there's still over two months to go before the election itself and given the year we've had two months is a very long time in politics.

We will see, I have a hunch!

 

I think whoever wins it will be very narrow again, and like you say, a hell of a lot can change in 2 months!

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We will see, I have a hunch!

 

I think whoever wins it will be very narrow again, and like you say, a hell of a lot can change in 2 months!

FWIW right now I'm thinking that Biden will crush the popular vote to the tune of about 5-6%, but I do think the electoral college will be a lot closer - perhaps only by a margin of 20-25 votes.

[leicsmac]

Of course, all the above being said, if Trump manages to successfully suppress mail-in voting through dual use of Covid-related delays and the largely mythical "voter fraud" boogeyman he's so fond of deploying then all bets are off again. So when I say the numbers aren't looking great for him, that's assuming a totally legit voting process - he could of course engage in shenanigans and then it would be up to the courts to see whether or not it has a veneer of legality he could use to get by with it. So there's that.

Edited 27 August 2020 by leicsmac

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We will see, I have a hunch!

 

I think whoever wins it will be very narrow again, and like you say, a hell of a lot can change in 2 months!

i believe Biden holds much bigger leads than Hilary in the crucial swing states. 

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

i believe Biden holds much bigger leads than Hilary in the crucial swing states. 

We have to assume that Trump is as unpopular as he can possibly get. But Biden could still lose support. The Republicans will hit him with something in the autumn. I don't think it's as clear cut as people think. 

[oxford blue]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Shades of Trump... 

 

I don't think Boris can be compared to Trump, apart from a similar inability to grasp facts, probably due to a lack of work ethic in comparison to most other other top politicians. Certainly there is a perceived lack of direction with almost countless u-turns after just a few months.

 

The most disappointing aspect of his leadership is the communication skills he has previously shown in his political career. The clip above demonstrates this perfectly - he has completely lost the audience, although I din't think he had them from the start. It is still a time of crisis but he seems to have no sense of direction. Perhaps would not be so bad if his ministerial team were doing a good job (Sunak probably the exception), but does anyone have confidence in Hancock/ Williamson? And his failure to sack Cummings (who seemingly flouted rules) has likely led indirectly led to more people catching Covid