Also In The News - part 3

[bovril]

Just now, Dunge said:

There are definitely undecided/persuadable voters in America. Maybe not many percentage wise but enough.

Sure but I would've thought they'd be swayed by the potential policies, not who is leading the Democrats.

 

Never been to the US though and know very little about its politics.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

17 minutes ago, bovril said:

Sure but I would've thought they'd be swayed by the potential policies, not who is leading the Democrats.

 

Never been to the US though and know very little about its politics.

Politics has always been as much about personality as it has been policies - it’s just how we work as humans.

 

Policies are merely the excuses we use to justifying liking a politician, when the truth is our decision has been made within seconds of laying site on them.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Thanks @MPH

 

How do you think Harris will stand with women voters? 
 

I feel they’re voters more susceptible to changing their votes - and can be quite catty towards female politicians, almost to the point they show a preference for a man to be in charge. (huge sweeping generalisation I know, but necessary in this context).

 

And equally - would black men vote for a black woman? Doe s she have the type of pull Obama did (probably an unfair comparison, Obama was an excellent politician). 
 

Obviously she’ll be popular on the left… but the Dem’s should have that vote covered anyway.

 

I can’t help thinking many within the Dem’s might have preferred having someone else right now… but that they don’t really have someone else to choose.

 

 

 

she could do well with the women who are swing voters- she’s very very pro- choice and is a big advocate of abortion rights.. she’ll not win over the conservative Christian women, but then again she might not even want to. She is for expanding the influence of the state and social care and  government supplying healthcare so she definitely falls into the ‘liberal’ category.

 

with the Israel/ Hamas situation shes said a few contentious things. For example, she’s said that the “campus protesters are showing exacty what the human emotional response should be”. Whilst I think I know what she meant by that, it’s possibly open to  exploitation by the Trump campaign. She’s also said that the only way Israel can remain a Jewish and democratic state is  as part of a two state solution. Again, that’s open to exploitation. However she’s also said that Israel should be treated equally and she’s also said a resolution to this situation can not be imposed upon but equally agreed by the Israelis and Palestinians. So she should be able to come out of any mud slinging on Israel by the Trump campaign.

 

 

It all comes down to whether  she can secure enough support within her own party..  they have GOT to be of the mindset that they should be willing to do whatever is needed to be re- elected.  she is direct and blunt and , apparently, that spills over to being ‘  rude and obnoxious’.That seems to be accepted more by the republicans actually, but it remains to be seen  if the democrats will accept that.

 

 

im not convinced Biden’s  endorsement ,someone  who has lost a massive amount of political respect recently, will be enough to secure her place.

 

 

it needs to be though.

Edited 21 July by MPH

[bovril]

Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Politics has always been as much about personality as it has been policies - it’s just how we work as humans.

 

Policies are merely the excuses we use to justifying liking a politician, when the truth is our decision has been made within seconds of laying site on them.

Not sure if I agree with this to be honest. I think personality plays a part but policy is much more influential. People ultimately vote for stuff they want.

[MPH]

58 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I hope Democrats don’t make the choice of candidate about whether the person is black, gay or a woman. This election is too important to be anything other than their suitability to beat Trump. Those characteristics should be irrelevant unless thought to improve the chances of success.

 

whilst I do agree with you, you have to understand that the U.S is still very different to the UK and they are, unfortunately, still breaking boundaries. It’s very important to some people to have someone they can relate to, someone who empowered them to be who they are and someone who might have faced similar struggles to them.

 

I long  for these days to be over, but I fear it might be some time away..

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Not sure if I agree with this to be honest. I think personality plays a part but policy is much more influential. People ultimately vote for stuff they want.

 

what I would say about this is that there really is a cultural difference between the U.S and the U.K.   We are at different places within the development of our countries. By all accounts, The U.S is still quite a young country.

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

what I would say about this is that there really is a cultural difference between the U.S and the U.K.   We are at different places within the development of our countries. By all accounts, The U.S is still quite a young country.

I can't resist the need here to be very pedantic and point out it's older than many states in Europe including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

I can't resist the need here to be very pedantic and point out it's older than many states in Europe including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland.

 

Great Britain was of course established in 1707 by two already established countries of England and Scotland. England was established in The year 927, many centuries before   Any colonizer had even set foot on what we call the United States, let  alone established a coherent government structure..

Edited 21 July by MPH

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

I can't resist the need here to be very pedantic and point out it's older than many states in Europe including the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland.

Tenuous given that Alaska and Hawaii didn't join the US until 1959...

[bovril]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

Great Britain was of course established in 1707 by two already established countries of England and Scotland. England was established in The year 927, many centuries before   Any colonizer had even set foot on what we call the United States, let  alone established a coherent government structure..

Which is why I said UK of GB and NI which is either 1801 or 1922 depending on how you look at it. Technically as a state the US is older.

 

Also I might be wrong but I think universal suffrage was achieved in the US before the UK 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

Can she get the votes to beat  Donald Trump? That’s got to be the biggy, surely?

I don't believe anyone can at this stage unless Trump does something really stupid.  That said I think as a young black liberal woman she at least is a counterpoint which will get people out to vote even if they don't like her personally that much.

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Tenuous given that Alaska and Hawaii didn't join the US until 1959...

Founding of the US is 1776.

 

UK 1707 or 1801, so not a massive difference. European nations are obviously older but the states themselves usually aren't. And Americans are mostly descendants of those European nations anyway, so I always think it's a bit unfair to claim they're a 'young' country.

[bovril]

The really important question is when did the Roman empire end?

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

The really important question is when did the Roman empire end?

If you are going to be technical then I believe 1453 was when the constitution of the Roman empire ceased, but are you an empire if you only rule a bit of Greece?  Interesting question for unlike the British empire there was no triggering war to make it happen in a decade or two, but many over nearly a millennia.  God I wish I studied more history.

Edited 21 July by Jon the Hat

[MPH]

40 minutes ago, bovril said:

Which is why I said UK of GB and NI which is either 1801 or 1922 depending on how you look at it. Technically as a state the US is older.

 

Also I might be wrong but I think universal suffrage was achieved in the US before the UK 

 

i think the point really is about the establishment of culture within those lands  that take countries to where they are and not the specific date. But what you are essentially arguing is that England was not a country before the Union of Great Britain was established, which I must disagree with.

[HighPeakFox]

I'd like to point out that the 'Hillary was unpopular' line is nonsense - she won her election by 3,000,000 votes. 

[Daggers]

So, we were talking earlier about the formation of the United kingdom...

 

 

[MPH]

So interestingly, I haven’t seen many of the top democrats, other than Biden, endorse or back Kamela Harris… some names to look out for as possible runners… Josh Shapiro (No relation to Ben! ) has a reputation for getting things done.. kinda  young and dynamic.. and Gretchen  Whitmer.. reputation for being a fast acting progressive.. passing key policies.. others would be Gavin Newsome and then Pete Buttigeig ( sp!?)

 

None of those I just mentioned have endorsed Harris and all have shown no secret about their own political aspirations.

 

 

 

I will just add though that whoever gets the nomination will face an uphill task… The democratic voters will feel somewhat lied to and cheated having voted for Biden and to have that pulled from them, especially as it appears that top democrats knew very well of Biden’s cognitive decline..

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

So, we were talking earlier about the formation of the United kingdom...

 

 

Funniest thing you’ve said all day. That’s like the stuff I write. 

[Lionator]

6 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'd like to point out that the 'Hillary was unpopular' line is nonsense - she won her election by 3,000,000 votes. 

I think she should throw her hat in the ring 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 hours ago, bovril said:

Not sure if I agree with this to be honest. I think personality plays a part but policy is much more influential. People ultimately vote for stuff they want.

Look at the Brexit vote - they had the personalities, hence they won from a weaker position (not status quo, not government backed etc).

 

Policy helps - but ultimately it’s the person behind the policy that sells it to voters.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 hours ago, MPH said:

 

It all comes down to whether  she can secure enough support within her own party..  they have GOT to be of the mindset that they should be willing to do whatever is needed to be re- elected.
 

she is direct and blunt and , apparently, that spills over to being ‘  rude and obnoxious’.That seems to be accepted more by the republicans actually, but it remains to be seen  if the democrats will accept that.

 

 

8 hours ago, MPH said:

whoever gets the nomination will face an uphill task… The democratic voters will feel somewhat lied to and cheated having voted for Biden and to have that pulled from them, especially as it appears that top democrats knew very well of Biden’s cognitive decline.

I think she will gain the support she needs - whether that’s through a coronation or a largely contrived ‘contest’ - and that the Dem’s will rally round afterwards because ultimately it’s a party machine who’s focus is on winning elections.

 

On the ‘rude and obnoxious’ thing - I’ve hear Twitter murmurs of that - but is that something the Republican’s can use to any effect given who their candidate is?

 

On the ‘betrayal’ aspect - I see this as something that will be quickly forgotten.

 

The marked decline in Biden was clear to see and I think a lot of people could relate the situation to an elderly relative and accept - he couldn’t continue. 

[bovril]

19 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Look at the Brexit vote - they had the personalities, hence they won from a weaker position (not status quo, not government backed etc).

 

Policy helps - but ultimately it’s the person behind the policy that sells it to voters.

Brexit won because of prejudice against Eastern Europeans and because people believed we sent too much money"to Brussels". I don't think personality had much to do with it.

[ealingfox]

The banter storyline now is for the Dems to come together with the deep state and actually rig this election for real - Trump's already tried that one once and it ultimately didn't work.

[fox_up_north]

Speaking to US friends, their dislike is due to her time in charge of justice. She was seen as heavy handed and didn't put out a compassionate image. It's added to her being seen as two faced.