Wednesday, March 4, 2020

How the American TV networks are stitching it up for Biden

I'll make no secret of the fact that I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, so I hope this isn't going to come across as sour grapes, but I've been watching in bemusement over the last few hours as CNN (and I presume the other US networks) have put on a Hollywood production intended to propel Joe Biden to the Democratic nomination. I have little doubt Biden will now be the nominee, unless he self-destructs as he has in the past. He'll owe his eventual victory to sheer momentum, but that momentum has been generated more by the networks than by the actual results overnight, which on any objective reading have been pretty close. So how are the likes of CNN stitching it up for Biden? There have been a few tricks -

1) Downplaying the proportional element of the delegate allocation and acting as if the states are winner-takes-all. It shouldn't really matter a damn whether Biden wins a small state like Maine by a couple of points or whether Sanders wins it by a couple of points, because either way the delegate count for each candidate would be virtually the same. Even in a much bigger state like Texas, it only makes a modest difference. But by treating the overall "winner" in each state as all-important, the networks make it seem hugely important for viewers and thus generate momentum for Biden after every coin toss "victory".

2) Pretending Biden's probable win in Texas is a monumental shock and repeating over and over again that nobody saw it coming, and using that as an excuse to make Texas "the story of the night". In the real world, plenty of people saw Biden's victory in Texas coming - he was actually the slight favourite in that state on the Betfair exchange at the start of the night. The reason was straightforward arithmetic - Sanders' lead over Biden in the polls didn't exceed the combined vote for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, who left the race over the last 48 hours and urged their supporters to vote for Biden.

3) Comparing apples with oranges to make it look as if Bernie Sanders is doing worse than in 2016. For example, it was pointed out repeatedly that Sanders won Minnesota in 2016 and lost it this time, but what was barely mentioned is that Minnesota has in the interim switched from a caucus system to a primary system and the two results are therefore not remotely comparable.

4) Using all of the above to distract from what should be the truly salient fact - ie. that Sanders and Biden are probably going to end up with a fairly similar overall number of delegates from the night. Yes, Biden has done better than expected and it's reasonable to reflect that in the reporting, but a network doing its job properly would also be pointing out that the race is now relatively even-stevens and there's all to play for in the coming weeks. Instead viewers are being fed a fairy-tale about an invincible Biden sweeping all before him, which is seemingly based mostly on a couple of percentage points here or there in Texas (the equivalent of only a handful of delegates).

94 comments:

  1. Sickening but not surprising. Sanders is the only who offers any real challenge to the power, in both main parties, of the oligarchy of wealth and privilege. I guess that the real surprise would be if the situation was not as it is.

    Good luck Bernie !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some of what you say is true but it's not the whole story.

    In the last week the race has shifted away from Bernie for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, at his highest watermark after the Nevada caucuses, Bernie made the tactical error of coming out against the "democratic establishment" when the better angle would be to been magnanimous and inclusive. It's a strategy that reminds me very much of Corbyn/Momentum. It's frustrating because Bernie very often talks in terms about his policies being good for everyone, but alienating the people you expect to support you in a few months time is not a good idea.

    Secondly, Sanders strategy was (is?) predicated on only needing 30% in a crowded field. Quite simply if Klobuchar and Buttigieg hadn't got out yesterday he would have got an insurmountable lead in delegates today and everyone knew it. Unfortunately, this strategy only worked until yesterday and now he'll be fighting an uphill battle for the next month with favourable territory for Biden.

    Thirdly, a week ago Biden was no sure thing to be even in the race today. He did the work of getting Clyburn on board in SC, and that endorsement was astonishingly effective - I read that nearly 50% of the voters in SC made their choice primarily based upon Clyburn's endorsement. Now you could say that this is "the establishment fix" but the reality is that if you run against the party you better be sure that voters don't care about the party.

    Fourthly, once Biden won so heavily in SC it made it clear that Buttigieg and Klobuchar had to leave the race (possibly for rewards in the future). This massively changed the dynamic, and you can see that Bernie has only done well in states with the largest postal vote that pre-dated the SC primary on Saturday.

    Finally, Bernie has found out, like Corbyn, that young voter enthusiasm is much, much harder to mobilize into a winning vote total.

    By the way, none of the above is an endorsement of Biden. I personally prefer Bernie's policies by a long way. I attended one of his rallies in 2016 and thought that his audience was a wonderful cross-section of the USA. However every Democrat I talk to is focused on one thing - who can beat Trump. Bernie has, rightly or wrongly, projected that he wants to be more radical than any other candidate, as well as beat Trump. That sits well with me, but the problem is it will (would?) make it doubly difficult to get the turnout necessary. If you disagree with me, look at the numbers today - Bernie did not grow his vote in the demographics he needed to.

    Now the race is decidedly in Biden's favour. I think the only way Bernie wins it now is if Biden implodes (e.g. a huge senior moment in a debate). I don't think that's likely but it could happen.

    Also, people underrate Biden's chances against Trump. He'll run on a simple message of "end the crazy" and he'll be able to add to the base with a lot of Republicans who can't stand Trump but might otherwise worry about voting for a socialist. Again, as long as he doesn't come across as too senile he'll be fine (and even if he does, he's hardly up against a rapier-like intelligence)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your point about Clyburn is important. If you look at the Texas demographic breakdown, Biden carried African Americans by a huge margin. This will be the all important demographic in Novemeber. Black women powered the Blue Wave and Biden got 60% of the Black vote. His problem will be carrying the Hispanic vote, on which he is behind Sanders. 24% to 45%.

      Tbh, more important than winning the Presidency is keeping the House and taking back the Senate. Trump could win the Presidency and be eviscerated by a hostile Congress, or Biden could win the Presidency and be pushed left by a more radical Congress. The Democrats need to learn the lesson the Republicans have learnt, power lies in winning Congress and blocking an opposition President and encouraging a puppet President. The Republicans own the Supreme Court and the Federal Courts because they played this game. Biden could win in November but, without Congress, he's a lame duck.

      Delete
  3. The BBC also bumming up Biden and his chances. Also calling Sanders the left wing candidate. Biden can neither be left or right, just the Liberal elite choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ricardo MalpensoMarch 4, 2020 at 7:16 PM

      You know all about bumming. So they tell me.

      Delete
  4. I wouldn't be too worried about it if I were you, James. The Democrats are an organized criminal conspiracy and that's all they are, at least at the level Bernie Sanders operates. And Bernie, for all his charisma, is really no better than the rest. A guy who never worked in his life except in government service at various levels ends up a millionaire with three houses and a stock portfolio filled with Fortune 500 companies. A wife with zero experience in the business is employed as his media buyer, a position which entitles her to 15% of what she spends, and what she spends is donations from Bernie's supporters. So 15% of the advertising budget goes straight into the Sanders family back pocket. Really, James, does it matter if Bernie gets bounced?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, of course it matters. A Sanders win would have a transformative and hugely beneficial effect on American foreign policy. The positive effects would be felt throughout the whole world. Most Scots I know think highly of Sanders, but a small minority such as yourself seem to hold him in utter contempt for no particular reason. That's a) unwarranted and b) deeply puzzling.

      Delete
    2. Young James US foreign policy is based on the US economic and strategic interests. This is not any different from the other major players. There would be no change is Sanders was in power.

      Delete
    3. Don't be absurd. Is Sanders going to suddenly start supporting Trump's "peace plan" for Israel/Palestine on the day after his inauguration? No he is not.

      Delete
    4. You are being ridiculous. The farce peace plan is irrelevant. You reckon Bernie will invade Israel and free Hamas to slaughter the Jews! Are you watering at the mouth with that thought young James?

      Delete
    5. Tiffany BoozebagMarch 4, 2020 at 7:18 PM

      You know all about farce. Or should I say arse.

      Delete
    6. Leaky Coloscomy BagMarch 4, 2020 at 7:54 PM

      I would like to lay on top of you.

      Delete
    7. James, I don't hold Sanders in "utter contempt", or at least no greater contempt than I do any Democrat. The problem with leftists is that they're always waiting for the next Great White Hope and currently, Sanders is it. They always end up disappointing because the whole socialist ideal is a con job. There will be no earthly paradise because Heaven and Earth exist on different plains, but for some incomprehensible reason, people keep reaching for it and it's a poisonous philosophy.

      Right now, I can tell you the independence project in Scotland is about to collapse and be sidelined for a generation because the SNP is swinging so far left on the unquestioned assumption that they're on "the right side of history". James, history doesn't have sides. It doesn't have a direction, it's not going anywhere and it has no terminal point. History is just a bunch of stuff that happened, nothing more. But because the idiotic Marxist idea of inevitable, automatic "progress" has taken hold in so many western minds, we get periodic meteors like Bernie Sanders, and, from a Scottish perspective, we get a massive tranche of the Scottish electorate abandoned by the SNP at a time when the whole independence movement is on the brink.

      I'm talking here about the small "c" conservatives in Scotland. People who, heretofore, have been willing to give the SNP a chance and who, because they receive absolutely zero representation from the Tories, might be willing to be persuaded into the independence camp. But all they're now getting from the SNP are the woke politics of the entryists who have infested that party in the name of the same "validated by history" nonsense that Bernie Sanders espouses in the US.

      Sanders is a rich man today because, like all leftists, he takes himself as the standard of good. Doing the kind of thing I described above is not wrong when HE does it because he's a "good person" who needs the money to secure his own position in order to make it better for others. There's always some excuse, just like the people who now run the SNP, who joined because that party is currently in the ascendant in Scotland and can therefore carry THEIR woke, transgender project forward probably tell themselves that what THEY want is so important that it wouldn't be really wrong to alienate those small c conservatives and deflect the party away from the real goal of independence.

      Delete
    8. Are the SNP really "swinging so far left"? They seem pretty tame on most issues. If they're far left, which UK party would you describe as centrist?

      Delete
    9. James Kelly: 'Yes, of course it matters. A Sanders win would have a transformative and hugely beneficial effect on American foreign policy.'

      Of course there was never any chance of Sanders being elected President even if he were to win the Democratic Party nomination.

      I would be fascinated to read your treaties on the presidential campaign strategy that gets him to 270 electoral votes against Trump and how. Which battleground states would Bernie win?

      The truth is Sanders is George McGovern without the standing of a military hero (which McGovern genuinely was) or the gold plated intellect. McGovern's 'Come home America' acceptance speech at the 1972 Democratic National Convention in Miami was was inspiring. Or I certainly thought so. But I was a naive young man.

      The American people thought differently. McGovern was annihilated in the Electoral College vote by Nixon, 520 to 17, losing 49 of 50 states, winning only MA and in DC. He could not even carry his own state, SD. Many of us were devastated and bewildered. How could this be?

      But we were very young and idealistic. There can be no such excuse today for those whose testes have fully descended or ovaries ripened.

      Delete
    10. "I would be fascinated to read your treaties on the presidential campaign strategy that gets him to 270 electoral votes against Trump and how. Which battleground states would Bernie win?"

      I take it you've seen the endless string of nationwide polls putting Sanders ahead of Trump, yeah? Often they put him further ahead than any other Denocratic candidate. But, hey, I'm sure you have some sort of convoluted explanation for why the American people don't actually know what they really think.

      Delete
    11. James is correct. If Bernie gets the nomination, he's quite capable of beating Trump.

      However, I'll be very surprised if Bernie gets the nomination. Here's someone who knows how it works -
      https://braveneweurope.com/michael-hudson-usa-in-a-struggle-between-oligarchy-and-democracy-something-must-give

      Delete
  5. Bernie Sanders publicly expressed his support that Scotland should be Independent and said "How could any American deny that right to any country which our country fought and died for"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand Trump's mum was British by contrast.

      Delete
    2. She was a British citizen yes,(at least until she took up American Citizenship) is that a bad thing?

      Delete
    3. I was just noting Trump is of British heritage.

      Delete
    4. So have lots of people, still wondering what is has to do with anything. What is his heritage in contrast to?

      Delete
    5. Do you think there's something wrong with being British / of British heritage? I just mentioned it in relation to the sanders comment.

      Delete
    6. In relation to what? What does Trumps heritage have to do with Sanders supporting Scottish Independence?

      Are you saying that because his mother was born in Scotland (and hence was a British Citizen leading to his British heritage) makes him less likely to support Scottish Indy in contrast to Sanders.



      Delete
    7. I'm not sure why you are so worked up about Trump being of British heritage.

      Trump is a big supporter of brexit and Johnson I understand, which would agree with his past opposition to Scottish indy.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40800707

      Trump: Scottish independence vote 'would be terrible'

      Delete
    8. Your the one that that brought it up. Was just wondering why, clearly it has nothing to do with his position on Scottish Indy so why did you mention it?

      Delete
    9. All I said was Trump's mother was British and you got yourself into a big flap about it for reasons I can't fathom.

      Delete
    10. I just wondered why? What relevance did it have. Your obviously of these weird people that thinks that the US President's heritage has anything to them doing the job, there the only ones that I ever hear mentioning it, bit like they did with Obama.

      Delete
  6. Given the UK will have a completely open border with the EU (Scottish and N. Irish parliaments are refusing to enforce any borders with Eire or down the Irish sea), how's it going to get trade deals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, migrants can flood in to England too via this route. All the way from Turkey.

      Holyrood and Stormont won't stop this. It's not their responsibility and they won't allow any infrastructure that breaks the GFA, or interferes with free movement between NI and Scotland.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51734240

      Delete
    2. A reminder.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51632340

      Brexit: EU warns UK over goods checks between NI and GB

      The same will apply for any trade deal the UK wants to make, including the WTO. It must demonstrate it is fulfilling its customs duties.

      But both the N. Irish and Scottish governments have already jointly agreed that they will leave the border between them open so that that free movement in the UK is maintained. They don't want a border between them and won't enforce one. Nor will they allow hard border infrastructure to be built.

      Delete
    3. How can you have a hard border between Scotland and NI. Do you propose navvies building a wall on the sea?

      Delete
    4. You'd know all about proposing (or should I say "propositioning"). So they tell me.

      Delete
  7. First off: it was shocking how deep and wide the Biden wave was. Without mail in votes already in before wave, it would be over ( Colorado 50% in, Cal 25). Media had declared Biden dead. Voted for Warren so she did well in home state. Cuz she is awesome. What happened was pretty simple. Most voted for whoever they think can win. I will support whoever wins. Bernie only getting 50% in Vermont, Eaten 25 in Mass showed this. Bernie supporters conspiracy theories ( DNC runs primaries!) Constant attacks on other candidates and declarations that they won't support party , and Bernie's unfathomable decision to Skip Selma ceremony and then campaign in Klobucher Minnesota ( incredibly Douchy - I mean, NO ONE on his staff told him this was insulting?). His people made little no effort to get along with other campaigns and broaden their base. Whatever they did was overshadowed by their online bullying ( attacking supporters of both Obama and Clinton as no different than Republicans). As for the " not winner take all" part? Seriously? Bernie and his supporters were crowing for weeks about how they had " won them all". Sauce for the goose ...
    We are heading to WW3. It's 1930's again. England has cowered again, vacating Europe to bully their smaller neighbors. We need to win. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel bullied by the English although I am not.

      Delete
    2. Guthnetta MortensonMarch 4, 2020 at 8:08 PM

      You know all about bulling. So I hear.

      Delete
  8. You Scottish Nat sis are a bit thick. Scotland is an Independent Nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the brexit vote here was Scottish, and not UK-wide?

      Delete
    2. Scots voted to remain in the UK Union. The EU is the bully boy and this will be borne out when we leave on WTO rules.

      Delete
    3. You know all about boys. So they tell me.

      Delete
    4. Young Scottish Catholic boys are like German Virgins, Shnize und Tight.

      Delete
    5. We can't leave on WTO rules as that requires a closed border. Stormont and Holyrood have said they'll leave their borders between each other and Eire/the EU open.

      Delete
    6. That would be illegal although the Irish are allowed in under the 1923 agreement. I doubt that many Irish will arrive as they have already helped build our railways and Hydro projects. Nothing much here for them now.

      Delete
    7. Ernestine BalhaldieMarch 4, 2020 at 8:11 PM

      You know all about meeting men in railway stations. So I hear.

      Delete
    8. Customs enforcement is reserved matter, so Stormont and Holyrood are not responsible for enforcement.

      However, they can simply refuse planning permission for border enforcement infrastructure, and provide no support here, e.g. in terms of policing. That's not illegal.

      Such infrastructure would, for example, increase CO2 emissions, so be contrary to UK law with respect to climate change targets. It would also be unsightly, spoiling the natural beauty of port areas etc. So I just can't see planning permission being granted.

      Also, how can we justify putting borders up between UK nations!

      Delete
    9. Only the EU can put up borders. The former ROI will obey the EU orders.

      Delete
    10. What are you on about? The UK needs to enforce borders as part of any trade deal, including with the WTO.

      How on earth would the EU be manning a border down the Irish sea on UK territory. It's England that has said it will enforce that.

      Delete
    11. The Scottish and N. Irish governments are refusing to enforce a border that England is trying to put between them.

      Are you seriously on England's side here? I thought you were a unionist.

      Delete
    12. What are you on about? There is no visible border on the UK mainland.

      Delete
    13. You know all about mainlands. Or should I say male lads?

      Delete
    14. GWC - do you really want the Scottish government to enforce a new English drawn border between nations of the UK?

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-51734240

      Scottish government seeks clarity over Irish Sea border

      The Scottish government has said it is seeking clarity from Westminster on whether it will be responsible for implementing the Irish Sea border.

      That border refers to new controls on GB to NI trade at the end of the Brexit transition period.


      I can't believe you don't stand shoulder to shoulder with the ulster unionists, Sinn Fein and the SNP in trying to stop this!

      Delete
  9. Skier, I assume you would have been against the English Tory Heath taking us into the EEC. Your Nat sis campaigned to leave the EEC along with Sinn Fein IRA. Wonder what has changed since then! Some people lining their pockets maybe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Scots were against joining the UK union back in 1707.

      What of it?

      Delete
    2. What date did the ballot take place during 1707.

      Delete
    3. You are right, there wasn't one. Scots were not consulted!

      Delete
    4. Rûmeschatska LerwillbaçMarch 4, 2020 at 8:13 PM

      You know all about ballots (if that's what they're calling them now).

      Delete
  10. It's truly glorious that we now have hardcore Scots unionists supporting English Johnson 'putting borders through the union' with his brexit one down the Irish Sea, while the red hand no surrender N. Irish unionists are busy shaking hands with Sinn Fein and the SNP on a deal to make sure that never happens.

    The UK's screwed. English nationalist brexit is a UK wrecking ball of epic proportions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last Epic I saw was Spartacus.

      Delete
    2. You know all about Spartacus. Especially his annual guides. Or so they tell me.

      Delete
  11. It looks like the Dems are gambling everything on the hypothesis that 2016 happened because Americans just hate women. Probably worth a shot.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Constantine MudgeMarch 4, 2020 at 10:36 PM

    Given my followers' understandably increasingly strident requests for further details of the searingly memorable series of Rimsky-Korsakov and (mein Gott) Gounod,(Yes, inexplicably that jaunty tunemonger was deemed by the musical authorities at Tampere worthy to feature alongside the master.) Baroness Schärdling has consented that I apprise you of the festivities. What does one say? How to say it? Suffice it that the music was as one expects in Heaven if an Heaven there be. The Baroness invited a tiny party of chers intimes to lunch at the appropriately - given its northern latitudes - austere Tamperin restooraanta. One died a little on partaking of the Délice de Bourgogne on dessicated mackerel skin knowing the joy of the experience shall never be repeated. Man stirbt ja ganz allein.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such fine words, I have not cried so much since hearing Helen Shapero singing in a duet on her own.

      Delete
    2. Constantine MudgeMarch 5, 2020 at 5:38 PM

      I bless you for youre comment whilst regretfully failing to recognise the name of the lady mentioned. I take it that she is an experiential performance artiste.

      Delete
    3. Would that the crooked timber of humanity could be beneficially exploited by other than Donald 'British Heritage' Trump and Alexander 'Boris' Johnson! I feel that Mr Mudge's attendances at some of the marginally-inappropriate offerings of Milan Opera House must have acquainted him of this insight.

      We should now go forward under a strong leader who is cognisant of such matters. And if the shirt is blue then sobeit.

      Delete
    4. Unionist Media BDSM ClubMarch 6, 2020 at 2:24 AM

      Terribly sorry to draw attention to this, but Constantine's 'youre' at 5.38 is literally the first time he/she has ever made a grammatical mistake in his/her adult life, and actually contains TWO errors. Where this double blunder leaves dear CM in the social hierarchy of Tampere only mein Gott knows.

      Delete
    5. Constantine MudgeMarch 7, 2020 at 10:19 AM

      Peccavi, peccavi. However, to my detractors and calumniators, I am assured that the Baroness laughs in the face of pedantry.

      Delete
  13. I said it was black.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-51737116

    Is the new passport really blue or black?

    ...The Home Office has issued pictures of the post-Brexit passport, describing it as a return to the "iconic blue" used for UK passports before 1988.

    Experts in the science of colour - and instant experts on social media - are unconvinced, saying they both look more like black.

    But a Home Office spokesman said the colours of both the old and new passports are shades of blue.

    "I'd say it's black," says Stephen Westland, professor of colour science and technology at the University of Leeds.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Skier a bit of clarity on your recent points are you saying you support the Scot Gov not implementing the border requirements for a deal, therefore forcing a no deal scenario which would do a huge amount of harm to the Scottish (and other EU countries) economies, cause job losses etc etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's only the actions of England that can result in no deal, very obviously, as they are the only party that can pull out.

      It's impossible for Scotland to cause no deal as it was - due to racist hatred by England - excluded from negotiations.

      The EU have said an extension to the transition is fine until issues such as those described are sorted out.

      A section 30 would for example solve the Scottish problem, so no deal = England's fault.

      Delete
    2. Are you against an extension to the transition in the face of corona? It looks like Westminster may well close, and likely the brexit negotiations will need to be delayed, resulting in an extension to the transition / delay to brexit.

      This will show how willing the EU is to be flexible here, and how no deal can only be England's fault.

      Delete
    3. As a general point, what is it with British nationalists and blaming others for their own failings.

      The English EVEL/UK government is in charge of brexit. It refused the devolved nations any power / veto / say. It's now going to suffer all sorts of legal problems as a result; the border one is just the first.

      So, it is all England's responsibility. Only a pathetic, weak, cowardly, feeble England would then blame the devolved nations if brexit goes wrong.

      You can't refuse a section 30 then blame Scotland for brexit problems. What kind of miserable little pathetic fuck of an England does that. FGS, how utterly fucking feeble.

      Delete
  15. Er no. If the when the UK Gov stops its posturing (which it will) and implements the necessary border controls (thus allowing a deal) and the Scottish Government does not then it is the Scottish Government is causing the deal to fail. Only a racist nationalist would blame another country for it not doing something.

    Of course the EU will recognise this. THey will see the UK Government (relucantly) keeping its side of the deal. They will see the Scottish Government refusing to do the same, causing harm to the ecomonies of the EU; something they will remember.

    Of course you are right, the UK Gov could ask for an extension to the transition period. But this cannot go on for ever. Unless the Scot Gov backed down and implemented the infrastructure, eventually the EU would say no to any further extensions.

    Best that the Scot Gov just implements the necessary infrastructure. As you say the Corona virus has put pay to any chance of a second ref this year. A new section 30 can be requested next year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Border control is a reserved matter, as are brexit negotiations, as is English independence or a Section 30 for Scotland/N. Ireland.

      England cannot tell the world Scotland is the cause of England's brexit problems when these can all be solved in an instant via a variety of ways, including simple English independence.

      The entire world knows England is trying to legally block Scottish indy, and has refused to recogonise the legitimacy of a referendum. It just becomes an even bigger laughing stock if it then tries to blame Scotland for its brexit problems, particularly given Scotland is 1/10th of its size.

      This is called 'blaming someone else for your problems', and if England does this, it would heap even greater humiliation on the current embarrassment it's already suffering for admitting to being too lazy and cowardly to stand on its own two feet.

      England will be openly mocked in across the negotiating table if it blames Scotland and N. Ireland for its peoples own inability to govern themselves as a nation.

      Delete
    2. Coming from a person who constantly blames England for everything this is such as ironic post. Anyhow, Scotland does not follow the rules then Scotland will get the blame, it really is that simple. Only a racist would blame another country for its own country following the rules.

      Delete
    3. I don't blame England. You are just a liar who can't help lying.

      I blame Westmister for failings with reserved policy areas.

      I also point out that England is a pathetic, weak, chickenshit 'nation' (questionable, given its fear to be one) too scared to stand on its own two feet. Hence no section 30. That's not blaming anyone for anything, just pointing out a fact of the current constitutional situation.

      Sorry, Scotland will not be blamed for brexit.

      It voted against brexit. It was refused a place in brexit negotiations. Its government asked for section 30 which would allow it to go independent, solving any border problems, but this was refused by England. England could go independent but chooses not to. England has made no provision nor plan for how exactly to build border infrastructure in Scotland/N. Ireland, nor enforce the border it is trying to put in place between these two nations against their will. Scots in majority support indy.

      Only in some mad, delusional fantasy fairies and unicorns world are Scots and the international community going to blame devolved administrations for this epic English made mess.

      Unionists and English brexiters will probably blame Scotland though. Par for the course. They never take responsibility for anything. You are a perfect example.

      Delete
  16. In summary, this is where we've go to:

    N. Irish ultra unionists are now working with Sinn Fein and the SNP to stop England building borders between UK nations.

    At the same time, with England having refused a Section 30 for Scotland, it will now proceed to blame Scotland for messing up brexit after Scotland tries to stop it breaking up the UK with a border down the Irish sea.

    And this is just the aperitif of the great British constitutional crisis that brexit creates, just as everyone with sense pointed out prior to the 2016 vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all in your imagination Skier. My old passport looks black. I have decided to renew next year in case in the future the EU orders the Nat sis to put border controls between Scotland and England. No doubt the jockos will obey orders.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. What's the point of a blue passport if it looks black to everyone.

      It's only England currently putting up borders between UK nations. The Scottish and N. Irish governments are refusing to cooperate with this.

      Delete
    3. You need borders to identify nations. Pink would be a nice colour for a passport. Would keep the tranny, gay and liquorice all sorts happy.

      Delete
    4. You know all about pink. Or so they tell me.

      Delete
  17. We must be close to peak union nuttery now.

    Why don't we build a great union jack monorail in the sky to bring us all together?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51751724

    Scotland-Northern Ireland bridge: Alister Jack backs tunnel plan

    The UK government is investigating the possibility of digging a tunnel between Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Scottish secretary has said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We could have a transporter room, beam me up Scotty.

      Delete
    2. We would have a teleporter room. But you'd need to be careful to enter it at the same time as a fly.
      Oh sorry, you already have.

      Delete
  18. Don't leave me alone in the Dominions. Because that'll make you sadder than GWC. (And I say that after having raked through his muck.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why does this site continue to post shallow material about American politics? I called it for Trump in 2016 and will do again.
    James Kelly should take his lack of insight and popular support on the chin. Better now than in 2021.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling for Trump was hardly rocket science. I bet on him to win. Anyone called Rev Stu would not have lasted five minutes in Brigton and chased aff with a sore arse.

      Delete
    2. Given everyone has a ~50/50 chance of calling a US presidential election, it's not difficult to be right at least half the time.

      Although if you'd bet on Trump being more popular than Clinton, you'd have lost yer benefits cash GWC, because, of course, she won the most votes.

      Delete
    3. The Yanks have their electoral system like most countries. You Nat sis claimed to have a mandate for a referendum yet the majority did not vote Nat si.

      Delete
    4. The Brits have their electoral system, and that gave the SNP + Greens a victory. Do you think we should disrespect the UK?

      Delete
  20. If anyone can make head or tail of this, from Wiki:

    "An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan candidates. In a traditional open primary, voters may select one party's ballot and vote for that party's nomination. As in a closed primary, the highest voted candidate in each party then proceeds to the general election. In a nonpartisan blanket primary, all candidates appear on the same ballot and the two highest voted candidates proceed to the runoff election, regardless of party affiliation. The constitutionality of this system was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008,[1] whereas a partisan blanket primary was previously ruled to be unconstitutional in 2000.[2] The arguments for open primaries are that voters can make independent choices, building consensus that the electoral process is not splintered or undermined by the presence of multiple political parties."

    Well, explain it to me.

    So far, it doesn't explain at the very least, whether non aligned electors are allowed to vote at all in the Primaries. Just as a guess, in some states yes in others no? And in both or neither?

    For a society that thinks it is democratic it has to do amazing mental gymnastics to believe in super delegates.

    America is a tad fucked.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning ? Click here to find your hidden name meaning

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is now looking likely that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee following his victory in Michigan yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Provided he remembers to turn up for the convention. There's an element of FDR about Biden. A man completely out of it, but being wheeled up to the White House by the Democrats so they can get their VP into office before the old guy croaks. It'll be interesting to see who Biden's "choice" for that role will be.

      Delete