|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 9, 2024 0:13:27 GMT
It's an election, the idea that the losing party can't continue to stand up for people and their values is not only silly, it's a little worrying It's a Democracy, not a one party state We'll find out soon enough if that is true. I have my fears. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 9, 2024 0:26:54 GMT
Ironically, just before Election Day Nate Silver argued that if Lichtman had applied his keys in a consistent way to how he'd applied them in recent elections then he'd have predicted Trump to be the winner this time. But as the two have Previous and Silver has a new pay-platform to build up I wouldn't assume any greater objectivity on his part than Lichtman's over this particular point  I have some sympathy with that. I had a look at the keys a couple of months ago and tried to apply them to the current scenario and thought Lichtman's take on it was overly generous to the Democrat's chances (in fact the way he was doing it Biden would have had an even better chance of winning than Harris, which the polling suggested was nonsense). Lichtman has had a pop back at Silver after the outcome saying that at least he admits he got it wrong whereas Silver equally failed to predict Trump would win as easily as he did, but he made it so opaque as to have a sort of 'each-way bet' going. Agree on Lichtman - after Biden dropped out he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing anyway, the degree to which some of his keys needed reinterpreting after the fact meant even if he'd picked the right winner he'd have been accused of fudging things. Not necessarily a thumb on the scales to get a particular outcome, but even just making one-off subjective judgements in unique circumstances kinda derails the point of a model that supposedly speaks from history. His pop at Silver sounds rather sour frankly - if the polls are basically tied then what's a probabilistic polling-based model supposed to show other than that both candidates have very similar chances of winning? The fact that one of them inevitably *will* win doesn't invalidate a model that says the polling is too close to indicate which one it'll be. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 9, 2024 0:34:32 GMT
I have some sympathy with that. I had a look at the keys a couple of months ago and tried to apply them to the current scenario and thought Lichtman's take on it was overly generous to the Democrat's chances (in fact the way he was doing it Biden would have had an even better chance of winning than Harris, which the polling suggested was nonsense). Lichtman has had a pop back at Silver after the outcome saying that at least he admits he got it wrong whereas Silver equally failed to predict Trump would win as easily as he did, but he made it so opaque as to have a sort of 'each-way bet' going.
This is pretty clear looking at the results at sub state level.
It was a shock to them maybe, and a few similar types on this site, but it also offers a warning to Labour not to underestimate the danger that right wing Populists* will present to them in 2028/9. * Conservative and Reform combined, as had happened in 2019, beat Labour in terms of votes, and the great right wing unity candidate Boris Johnson will be eyeing a return soon. I suspect that's oversimplifying a bit there jib - whilst the votes are still being counted in various states, it's looking very much like this isn't a further extension of the rural vs urban polarisation of recent elections but something messier, with Trump's increase in support amongst Latino and black voters translating into narrower margins for the Dems in big blue cities. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 9, 2024 1:14:38 GMT
Whilst the ongoing House count is understandably getting the attention, it's worth a look at how the other federal elections are shaping up. In the Presidential race, Trump's margin is currently 2.8%, or about 4.1 million votes. That's dropped over the last couple of days and will continue to drop as Governor Newsom's tireless defenders of democracy in California find their way to, you know, counting some more ballots at some point. At a rough guess I'd expect another 1.5m or so of margin for Harris from California, and for her to gain a bit more across the rest of what's outstanding, so Trump finishing up roughly 2m votes or 1.5% ahead. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president.htmlIn the Senate, it's currently 52-45 with three results outstanding. Of those, the Republicans might hold their narrow lead and gain the seat in Pennsylvania, whilst the Democrats seem more likely to hold on in Arizona and Nevada. Whilst the majority was confirmed by the Republicans making the expected gains in West Virginia and Montana and holding their own most vulnerable seats in Nebraska, Texas and Florida, the key result was flipping Ohio. Ohio ensures them at least a 52-48 majority, meaning that even if the two most dissenting Republican Senators (Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) were to vote with the Democrats then whoever becomes the new** Senate Majority Leader for the Republicans would still likely get their legislation passed. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-senate.html(** that guy who always looked like a turtle crammed into a business suit has finally retired - I have no prediction about who will get the top job now, other than to say that they will definitely hate Ted Cruz) |
|
|
|
Post by lens on Nov 9, 2024 1:15:11 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - The obvious answer is for you to come up to Alwen Forest, and give the team the benefit of your engineering knowledge. I'll try to be present at the meeting. Should be fun. After you give your presentation - "did you know you could make hydrogen instead of throwing Leccy away?", then if you are lucky they may run through a more detailed analysis with you? That may consist of the paper from 5 years ago, which is in the public domain, and if you are really lucky other more recent analysis as well? ....................... Most of that ignores the key points. ................... - Yes it might cost extra to make ammonia, but you have to set that against reduced storage costs. They are planning a trial, and in the end if it is profitable they may do it. – As we have discussed in the past, they don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it. They might produce ammonia on the coast, or even offshore, which would be quite convenient because the ammonia might be used for shipping .................. - Once again, comparing with batteries misses the point. I’m not talking about storing leccy here, but producing something with it that you can sell. If you store the leccy in a battery, then put it into the grid, you will get a certain price. If you can make more from the leccy making something else - after taking costs into account - other than putting it in the grid, they may choose that. ................... - No, you are putting up straw man arguments which may have a grain (or sometimes more) of truth in them - but in isolation are a distraction from what you were originally proposing - fundamentally that electricity which would otherwise be curtailed be used to make hydrogen by electrolysis. (The electricity is free!! So the hydrogen will be ultra cheap!! Whoopee!) Presented as such it seemed a no brainer at first sight!? But - even some years ago what that argument didn't consider was glossing over (conveniently) that it implied plant sitting idle most of the time waiting for such curtailment periods. It also ignored that most electrolysis plant doesn't react well to varying the power input when operating. Very cheap power - hopeless plant utilisation. Gain on the swings - lose on the roundabouts. Maybe - just MAYBE - some circumstances may have made it make sense, but...... ..... for the last couple of years most schemes have incorporated large battery storage. And such have largely negated or even eliminated curtailment issues. More simply, going forward there just isn't likely to be much electricity to be curtailed, and hence available for your proposal. When you say "comparing with batteries misses the point" then that's just totally wrong. It's absolutely the point. The use of a BESS with renewable sources can largely mean curtailment disappearing. They go a very long way to decoupling demand and supply for a given project, and go a long way towards matching peak generation to most favourable pricing. That's the benefit to the opeartor - to the grid they go a long way towards removing a big objection to renewables at all. They make the site output way more predictable overall and controllable, and with the ability to provide synthetic inertia. You also completely miss the point about ammonia, or similar chemicals. It's not just about cost, but about the desirability of addding further industrial processes to a rural site, together with the need to physically transport the end product in areas unsuited to heavy traffic, coupled with likely poor economies of scale. I'm amused when you say "don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it" and then suggest doing it "on the coast, or even offshore". Errr, yes - technically possible. But..... then you need a power connection for your otherwise curtailed electricity to "the coast, or even offshore", so more cost to add to the cost of electrolysis plant and that for ammonia or whatever production. All of it destined to only be occasionally used during periods of otherwise curtailment! For heaven's sake! Now none of this is to argue per se against such green production of hydrogen, ammonia etc or products derived from such. It's the way forward - when total renewable supply permits. But such is likely to happen close to the site of use - not generation, largely to minimise physical transportation. And most critically, largely as base load to the grid for efficiency of plant and scale - exactly the opposite to any concept of "using surplus leccy". Dealing with the "surplus leccy" will increasingly be done at the generation site with batteries. Ultimately, I don't ask anyone to just blindly accept my opinion because I say it - it is the way it's increasingly happening in reality - and if you don't accept it, well, it's yourself you're deluding. Green hydrogen, ammonia and other products will increasingly be made in future - just not as a way of combatting curtailment. And the place for such green products should be to displace "dirty" products currently used by industry with no alternative. Not for such as road transport, home heating, or energy storage, where better (greener) solutions exist. Regarding road transport then hydrogen "solutions" do now seem to be on the decline. Tevva (in the UK) has been joined by Quantron on the continent in ceasing to trade. (The latter causing quite a few red faces for IKEA in Austria.) And frankly c-a-r-f-r-e-w, this is my last word on this subject. Do reply if you must insist on the last word. But the whole subject around renewable generation curtailment is not now the theoretical one it may have been only a few years ago - the matter has in principle largely been solved via battery solutions. That's not just an opinion of mine, it's what the industry is increasingly doing, whatever you may believe. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 9, 2024 1:27:21 GMT
Ruben Gallego (D) currently has over 70,000 more votes than Kamala Harris in Arizona - with 79% of the vote counted in both the Senate and Presidential races.
I appreciate Trump outperforms downballot Republican candidates but Kari Lake is so Trumpian, it's surprising that she is polling 131,000 fewer votes than him.
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 9, 2024 1:42:08 GMT
RAF - nah, Lake is the absolute liability of this cycle. She's the reason no-one was factoring Arizona into the Senate calculations despite it usually being the most Republican of the swing states in this year's Presidential polling.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 9, 2024 5:53:07 GMT
Most of that ignores the key points. ................... - Yes it might cost extra to make ammonia, but you have to set that against reduced storage costs. They are planning a trial, and in the end if it is profitable they may do it. – As we have discussed in the past, they don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it. They might produce ammonia on the coast, or even offshore, which would be quite convenient because the ammonia might be used for shipping .................. - Once again, comparing with batteries misses the point. I’m not talking about storing leccy here, but producing something with it that you can sell. If you store the leccy in a battery, then put it into the grid, you will get a certain price. If you can make more from the leccy making something else - after taking costs into account - other than putting it in the grid, they may choose that. ................... - No, you are putting up straw man arguments which may have a grain (or sometimes more) of truth in them - but in isolation are a distraction from what you were originally proposing - fundamentally that electricity which would otherwise be curtailed be used to make hydrogen by electrolysis. (The electricity is free!! So the hydrogen will be ultra cheap!! Whoopee!) Presented as such it seemed a no brainer at first sight!? But - even some years ago what that argument didn't consider was glossing over (conveniently) that it implied plant sitting idle most of the time waiting for such curtailment periods. It also ignored that most electrolysis plant doesn't react well to varying the power input when operating. Very cheap power - hopeless plant utilisation. Gain on the swings - lose on the roundabouts. Maybe - just MAYBE - some circumstances may have made it make sense, but...... ..... for the last couple of years most schemes have incorporated large battery storage. And such have largely negated or even eliminated curtailment issues. More simply, going forward there just isn't likely to be much electricity to be curtailed, and hence available for your proposal. When you say "comparing with batteries misses the point" then that's just totally wrong. It's absolutely the point. The use of a BESS with renewable sources can largely mean curtailment disappearing. They go a very long way to decoupling demand and supply for a given project, and go a long way towards matching peak generation to most favourable pricing. That's the benefit to the opeartor - to the grid they go a long way towards removing a big objection to renewables at all. They make the site output way more predictable overall and controllable, and with the ability to provide synthetic inertia. You also completely miss the point about ammonia, or similar chemicals. It's not just about cost, but about the desirability of addding further industrial processes to a rural site, together with the need to physically transport the end product in areas unsuited to heavy traffic, coupled with likely poor economies of scale. I'm amused when you say "don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it" and then suggest doing it "on the coast, or even offshore". Errr, yes - technically possible. But..... then you need a power connection for your otherwise curtailed electricity to "the coast, or even offshore", so more cost to add to the cost of electrolysis plant and that for ammonia or whatever production. All of it destined to only be occasionally used during periods of otherwise curtailment! For heaven's sake! Now none of this is to argue per se against such green production of hydrogen, ammonia etc or products derived from such. It's the way forward - when total renewable supply permits. But such is likely to happen close to the site of use - not generation, largely to minimise physical transportation. And most critically, largely as base load to the grid for efficiency of plant and scale - exactly the opposite to any concept of "using surplus leccy". Dealing with the "surplus leccy" will increasingly be done at the generation site with batteries. Ultimately, I don't ask anyone to just blindly accept my opinion because I say it - it is the way it's increasingly happening in reality - and if you don't accept it, well, it's yourself you're deluding. Green hydrogen, ammonia and other products will increasingly be made in future - just not as a way of combatting curtailment. And the place for such green products should be to displace "dirty" products currently used by industry with no alternative. Not for such as road transport, home heating, or energy storage, where better (greener) solutions exist. Regarding road transport then hydrogen "solutions" do now seem to be on the decline. Tevva (in the UK) has been joined by Quantron on the continent in ceasing to trade. (The latter causing quite a few red faces for IKEA in Austria.) And frankly c-a-r-f-r-e-w , this is my last word on this subject. Do reply if you must insist on the last word. But the whole subject around renewable generation curtailment is not now the theoretical one it may have been only a few years ago - the matter has in principle largely been solved via battery solutions. That's not just an opinion of mine, it's what the industry is increasingly doing, whatever you may believe. You talk of straw men, yet once again, you are arguing at length with some unknown dude elsewhere who claimed there were no costs. (Bit like you did in the discussion over particulates: citing what others may have said, rather than what I said). Whereas my argument was a different one, that you keep ignoring: that yes there are costs, but the question is whether the revenues may sufficiently outweigh the costs, or other alternatives. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 9, 2024 6:49:47 GMT
. Green hydrogen, ammonia and other products will increasingly be made in future - just not as a way of combatting curtailment. . But the whole subject around renewable generation curtailment is not now the theoretical one it may have been only a few years ago - the matter has in principle largely been solved via battery solutions. That's not just an opinion of mine, it's what the industry is increasingly doing, whatever you may believe. hmm. It seems likely the final solution will involve an installed renewables capacity at least double demand at peak generation, and also with an average generating capacity in excess of demand. When you talk about plant only occasionally used,we are likely to have a huge amount of spare electricity some of the time. The problem is how to match supply to the worst case weather conditions and still guarantee supply then. So in normal conditions we will inevitably have too much generation. We will need industry capable of using this intermittent supply. Or putting that another way, to make renewables work, it's guaranteed there will be spare electricity, so something is going to come along to make use of it. Paying them to waste it isnt sensible. we might even end up installing extra batteries to feed the hydrogen plants more evenly if batteries get that cheap. And extra nuclear is just stupid because it adds to the peak surplus. To be economic it has to be cheaper than the cheapest renewables plus batteries (after another 20 years falling costs for them), and it likely isnt. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 7:13:06 GMT
Among the carnage of the election it was notable that among black women the rapist President elect secured just 9% of the vote 91% for Harris.
While the majority of women voted democrat the majority of white women , for the third election in a row, voted for the serial sex abuser and stealer of women's rights.
I suppose the combination of racism and christofascist stupidity was just too big a hurdle for them to cross
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 7:29:57 GMT
Urgent meetings at the Pentagon as senior military officials consider how to respond if the fascist president elect issues illegal orders to use U.S. military against U.S. citizens. U.S. Military are obliged to refuse illegal orders, if As will happen trump places his cult acolytes in senior positions in the defence department while sacking career civil servants by the thousands of places them in an incredibly difficult situation. Do they refuse the orders of trump and his appointees Breach their oath to serve and protect the constitution of the United States. Or do they resign and see the senior ranks filled with fascist cultists. I have no idea what happens next. November 1923 saw the rise of Adolph Hitler to prominence, November this year is looking like an equally ignominious time. youtu.be/jssQaGXJk-o?si=3OZytU6ryA0SzKE1 |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 9, 2024 7:33:54 GMT
So it transpires that Project 25 the core maga proposal for transferring money from the poor to the mega rich is actually what the trump regime intends to do. " I never thought the leopard would eat my face" says the man who voted for The leopards eat your face party! It's national shoot yourself in the foot day all over again. ? yes i thought that, interesting but what are you talking about? |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 9, 2024 7:53:16 GMT
Most of that ignores the key points. ................... I'm amused when you say "don’t necessarily have to do it inland then transport it" and then suggest doing it "on the coast, or even offshore". Errr, yes - technically possible. But..... then you need a power connection for your otherwise curtailed electricity to "the coast, or even offshore", so more cost to add to the cost of electrolysis plant and that for ammonia or whatever production. All of it destined to only be occasionally used during periods of otherwise curtailment! For heaven's sake! You might find it amusing to state the obvious that no one was contesting - others might find it amusing that you don’t seem to realise that you would have to build a power connection to the shore anyway when you put the leccy into the grid instead of making hydrogen or something else! It currently costs to connect offshore wind turbines to the shore at the moment you know! The leccy doesn’t just float into the grid over the waves! You seem incapable of considering the cost of your own arguments (And I wasn’t arguing to use it just for curtailment, that’s another straw man. Just that there might be an added incentive when we are paying to chuck the leccy away). Most of that ignores the key points. ................... And frankly c-a-r-f-r-e-w , this is my last word on this subject. Do reply if you must insist on the last word. But the whole subject around renewable generation curtailment is not now the theoretical one it may have been only a few years ago - the matter has in principle largely been solved via battery solutions. That's not just an opinion of mine, it's what the industry is increasingly doing, whatever you may believe. This is a real tragedy, that you are capitulating just when becoming familiar with your world, a world where you only contest the options that are the more difficult to store, not the easier ones. A world where you ignore the options that might afford the additional benefit of carbon capture. A world where ammonia only costs money to make, you couldn’t possibly consider what you might make from selling it. A world where batteries appear to be free and are limitless in supply, and wind turbines don’t need cabling to get the leccy into the grid! You only need cabling if you make something like ammonia! |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 9, 2024 8:05:49 GMT
yes i thought that, interesting but what are you talking about? I’m not sure, but I took it to suggest that just as one might expect bad things from voting for Brexit, one ought not to be surprised at bad things from voting Trump? (In any event, whatever it means it’s unlikely it is something of which jib would wholeheartedly approve!…) Good morning btw |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 8:09:25 GMT
(In any event, I doubt it is something of which jib would wholeheartedly approve…)
Well it's hardly my go to litmus test but it's a reasonable guide if a devoted brexitanian thinks it's a bad idea it almost certainly isn't.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,721
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 9, 2024 8:13:50 GMT
(In any event, I doubt it is something of which jib would wholeheartedly approve…) Well it's hardly my go to litmus test but it's a reasonable guide if a devoted brexitanian thinks it's a bad idea it almost certainly isn't. Ah, there is a potential future in which jib suggests some increasingly bad ideas to see if you agree they are bad… |
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 9, 2024 8:47:06 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,390
|
Post by neilj on Nov 9, 2024 8:49:10 GMT
Wow "Mike Davis, a leading candidate for the Trump administration's AG: “We're going to deport a lot of people, 10 million people and growing - anchor babies, their parents, their grandparents. We're gonna put kids in cages. It's gonna be glorious." (2023) Wow |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 9:10:57 GMT
neiljAs I mentioned before Rapist President elect's favoured candidate for Attorney General is Maga cultist Mike Davis. Here's Davis's c.v. Davis spoke to far-right pundit Benny Johnson one year ago about what he would do as acting attorney general — or as he referred to it, his “three-week reign of terror.” “Before I get chased out of town with my Trump pardon, I will rain hell on Washington, D.C.,” he told Johnson, reminding him how they’d discussed the subject in the past. Davis listed his main objectives: fire “a lot of people” in the executive branch; indict Joe Biden, who defeated Trump in the 2020 presidential election; deport “10 million people and growing,” or about 3% of the country’s population; detain “a lot of people” in Guantanamo Bay and “the D.C. gulag”; and pardon those charged over the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Adding just this week that one of those he wants to lock up in a gulag is New York State Attorney General Letitia James and wants to " put her fat arse in prison"if she doesn't stop criticising his cult leader for threatening to rip up the constitution. “We’re going to put kids in cages. It’s going to be glorious,” Davis said of migrant children. This man is almost certainly going to be in charge of the department of justice and as such will be the most senior law enforcement officer in the USA. Where that goes is anyone's guess . If I were a federal agent I would be seriously looking for a career change. It's the U.S. I doubt that the white supremacist cult will have too much difficulty finding sufficient thugs both within and outside of law enforcement to carry out their instructions but as with the U.S. armed forces and incidentally the U.K. police services you are legally and morally obliged to refuse unlawful orders. I truly hope enough remember their oaths of office.
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 9, 2024 9:20:28 GMT
Among the carnage of the election it was notable that among black women the rapist President elect secured just 9% of the vote 91% for Harris. While the majority of women voted democrat the majority of white women , for the third election in a row, voted for the serial sex abuser and stealer of women's rights. I suppose the combination of racism and christofascist stupidity was just too big a hurdle for them to cross "Lisa Neisler rolls her eyes and scoffs. She is thinking about a campaign advert featuring the actress Julia Roberts, in which women were encouraged to vote Democratic in the secrecy of the voting booth. In the ad, conservative white women are portrayed as wanting to do “the right thing” and vote for Kamala Harris but are too afraid to tell their intimidating husbands who support Donald Trump. “I was appalled by that commercial,” Neisler, 53, a nurse, says. “I love my husband, I respect my husband. But he doesn’t tell me what to do or who to vote for. I didn’t lose my intellect when I married him.” It was Neisler and millions of others who spurned the Democrats on Tuesday, torpedoing Kamala Harris’s chances of becoming the first female black president.Harris needed the white female vote but instead they backed Trump. The Democrats had placed gender at the heart of their campaign, warning conservative women that abortion restrictions and Trump’s sexual misconduct history meant their freedoms and future were at stake if they did not switch allegiance. But there were two fundamental flaws. White women were more concerned about matters that directly impacted their families and livelihoods — the cost of living crisis, illegal immigration, and, for some, other issues about American values. And perhaps just as significantly, the modern Republican woman does not feel downtrodden or exploited. She believes that conservative values empower her. She does not like being condescended to. Anna Rollins, an academic at Marshall University, West Virginia, with an upcoming book on gender issues, voted Democratic but says a lot of women were insulted by the messaging. “That Julia Roberts pitch to Republican women — ‘we know you’re scared, we know that you’re with us deep down inside, you can muster up courage to do what you really want to do’. It’s so condescending and it majorly missed the mark. “Some Republican women are professionals, some care full time for their children. Those who have traditional housewife roles — they don’t view themselves as having been put in that box, they have chosen it.” Just like in 2016 and 2020, a majority of white women (52 per cent) voted for Trump. Given the spectre of a rollback on their reproductive rights, it caused anger and disbelief among Democratic commentators, one blaming “uneducated white women”. Brittany Bennett, 34, a mother of three who runs her own law firm in Warner Robins, a two-hour drive from Georgia’s capital of Atlanta, raises her eyebrows at the description. “I think it’s divisive. I can only tell you my personal experience. I have a law degree, I’m a practising attorney. I don’t fit into that stereotype. And the bulk of people I align with, they fall into that same category. I voted Trump as I want our kids to be safe and have economic opportunities moving forward.” " Times |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 9, 2024 9:21:02 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 9, 2024 9:21:30 GMT
yes i thought that, interesting but what are you talking about? I’m not sure, but I took it to suggest that just as one might expect bad things from voting for Brexit, one ought not to be surprised at bad things from voting Trump? (In any event, whatever it means it’s unlikely it is something of which jib would wholeheartedly approve!…) Good morning btw Morning. Globexit for the US makes a lot more sense to me than brexit to the UK. There is no way the UK can be self sufficient and divorce itself from world trade, but that isnt true of the US beause its basically a whole continent. Seems to me quite likely the world is going to divide into major trade blocks which have strong internal trade but more limited external trade. Reasons for this include that China has got its act together, the EU has real trade power acting as one block, and presumably India is also working on it. Its perhaps more like the 19th century again with a few major players each controlling chunks of the world and operating internal markets. Difficulties will come for any country isolated outside one of these blocks. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,362
|
Post by Danny on Nov 9, 2024 9:33:56 GMT
Its obvious what is responsible for the Trump win, the democrats have lost the working class vote. Having said that, Pelosi is being generous to Harris in saying she might well have won an open primary, because what i remember from back then argued she wasnt up to being the candidate herself. If anything, you could see what actually happened as about the only way Harris could have become the candidate, so you could see it as Biden playing a game to give her the candidacy the only way it could be finessed, him pulling out late. The way Harris has reacted, it seems she really believed she could win. But she lost for the same reason labour got such a small vote share, because the Trump/Farage party has more appeal to the working class than any of lab/con/rep/dem who have all acted to undermine the living standards of the working class for the last 50 years. Half of americans eligible to vote chose not to. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 10:28:30 GMT
“I think it’s divisive. I can only tell you my personal experience. I have a law degree, I’m a practising attorney. I don’t fit into that stereotype. And the bulk of people I align with, they fall into that same category. I voted Trump as I want our kids to be safe and have economic opportunities moving forward.” "
Which goes to show that having a law degree doesn't stop you from being an eejit as my wife constantly reminds me, trumps own legal defence teams have shown this time after time.
And yes Colin I do have a law degree an LLM in Criminal law☺
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on Nov 9, 2024 10:51:03 GMT
Among the carnage of the election it was notable that among black women the rapist President elect secured just 9% of the vote 91% for Harris. While the majority of women voted democrat the majority of white women , for the third election in a row, voted for the serial sex abuser and stealer of women's rights. I suppose the combination of racism and christofascist stupidity was just too big a hurdle for them to cross "Lisa Neisler rolls her eyes and scoffs. She is thinking about a campaign advert featuring the actress Julia Roberts, in which women were encouraged to vote Democratic in the secrecy of the voting booth. In the ad, conservative white women are portrayed as wanting to do “the right thing” and vote for Kamala Harris but are too afraid to tell their intimidating husbands who support Donald Trump. “I was appalled by that commercial,” Neisler, 53, a nurse, says. “I love my husband, I respect my husband. But he doesn’t tell me what to do or who to vote for. I didn’t lose my intellect when I married him.” It was Neisler and millions of others who spurned the Democrats on Tuesday, torpedoing Kamala Harris’s chances of becoming the first female black president.Harris needed the white female vote but instead they backed Trump. The Democrats had placed gender at the heart of their campaign, warning conservative women that abortion restrictions and Trump’s sexual misconduct history meant their freedoms and future were at stake if they did not switch allegiance. But there were two fundamental flaws. White women were more concerned about matters that directly impacted their families and livelihoods — the cost of living crisis, illegal immigration, and, for some, other issues about American values. And perhaps just as significantly, the modern Republican woman does not feel downtrodden or exploited. She believes that conservative values empower her. She does not like being condescended to. Anna Rollins, an academic at Marshall University, West Virginia, with an upcoming book on gender issues, voted Democratic but says a lot of women were insulted by the messaging. “That Julia Roberts pitch to Republican women — ‘we know you’re scared, we know that you’re with us deep down inside, you can muster up courage to do what you really want to do’. It’s so condescending and it majorly missed the mark. “Some Republican women are professionals, some care full time for their children. Those who have traditional housewife roles — they don’t view themselves as having been put in that box, they have chosen it.” Just like in 2016 and 2020, a majority of white women (52 per cent) voted for Trump. Given the spectre of a rollback on their reproductive rights, it caused anger and disbelief among Democratic commentators, one blaming “uneducated white women”. Brittany Bennett, 34, a mother of three who runs her own law firm in Warner Robins, a two-hour drive from Georgia’s capital of Atlanta, raises her eyebrows at the description. “I think it’s divisive. I can only tell you my personal experience. I have a law degree, I’m a practising attorney. I don’t fit into that stereotype. And the bulk of people I align with, they fall into that same category. I voted Trump as I want our kids to be safe and have economic opportunities moving forward.” " Times So she and many were quiet happy to throw women who aren't so fortunate as she is under the bus? Women are already dying due to the abortion ban and they plan to stop contraception as well. They were warned how important this election is/was. Trump is going to push the constitution as far a he can and he has the people around him to do it, from a new political appointed AG to a Supreme Court that's already basically exonerated him from breaking the law as President. Sorry, but screw those that voted Trump. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2024 11:07:20 GMT
pete Being the type of person I am I tracked down Brittany Bennett on line. It wasn't difficult as she worked as a special adviser to speaker of the Georgia Assembly maga extremist republican Jon Burns!
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 9, 2024 11:19:26 GMT
#Pete
The Times criticising the Dems for opposing Trump for exactly the sane reasons it originally did! !
Can you imagine The Times endorsing a Dem campaign focused on state-centred social democratic economic investment in poorer and marginalised working class communities?
Instead, it is taking a quixotic approsch - we don't like Trump but we're glad he won?
|
|
|
|
Post by mark61 on Nov 9, 2024 11:30:01 GMT
pete Being the type of person I am I tracked down Brittany Bennett on line. It wasn't difficult as she worked as a special adviser to speaker of the Georgia Assembly maga extremist republican Jon Burns! I can't read the article Colin posted from the Times as it is behind a Paywall, I get the impression though that Brittany Bennett is quoted as a Vox Pop, if that is so it would seem to be a basic failure of Journalistic standards not to caveat her view with a reference that she a paid up MAGA supporter, context is important in evaluating opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by alberto on Nov 9, 2024 11:54:53 GMT
Interesting post shevii I think your last para is spot on. May I add a couple of observations from tv coverage seen. CNN have this amazing display which drills down to voting demographics in every county. The ( Dem leaning) analysts there were literally gobsmacked by the breadth of the coalition which Trump has created. Latino & Afro-caribbean voters across the country leaving Dems for Trump alongside the White Working Class which Dems have lost. Sky had an ongoing interview after the vote with the owner and customers of a diner. They were all from non-white backgrounds. Every one of them said food prices-things like a chicken or eggs -had doubled in the last few years. They thought the Trump 1 period was better for them financially. The owner,a Central American ,who crossed the border illegally ,years ago, complained about the numbers now coming across ( !) He said people from across the Atlantic were now using that route in. The Times this morning reports on a Labour MP "Growth Group" which is pushing Reeves to change the economic objective from GDP growth to Standard of Living improvement. Given what happened to Biden/Harris that seems a pretty canny idea. I thought this graph was interesting. It probably needs to be overlaid with gender and class too but I suspect simplistic early analysis will be better at establishing a narrative than really explaining things.  |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 9, 2024 12:23:58 GMT
Interesting post shevii I think your last para is spot on. May I add a couple of observations from tv coverage seen. CNN have this amazing display which drills down to voting demographics in every county. The ( Dem leaning) analysts there were literally gobsmacked by the breadth of the coalition which Trump has created. Latino & Afro-caribbean voters across the country leaving Dems for Trump alongside the White Working Class which Dems have lost. Sky had an ongoing interview after the vote with the owner and customers of a diner. They were all from non-white backgrounds. Every one of them said food prices-things like a chicken or eggs -had doubled in the last few years. They thought the Trump 1 period was better for them financially. The owner,a Central American ,who crossed the border illegally ,years ago, complained about the numbers now coming across ( !) He said people from across the Atlantic were now using that route in. The Times this morning reports on a Labour MP "Growth Group" which is pushing Reeves to change the economic objective from GDP growth to Standard of Living improvement. Given what happened to Biden/Harris that seems a pretty canny idea. I thought this graph was interesting. It probably needs to be overlaid with gender and class too but I suspect simplistic early analysis will be better at establishing a narrative than really explaining things. There's a factor that may be skewing this early data. The Dem turnout was significantly down with Rep turnout being about the same. Did these demographic groups switch to Trump, or did they just stay at home leaving Trump with a larger percentage of a smaller pie? |
|
