Crosswords1 min ago
Bbc Pro Democrats ?
trump or not to trump, but i have noticed a slant in the bbc.. to be more biden in there coverage, almost like he has won...sleepy old joe..libs socialists woke bame...whats not to love, in the end, it will be his second in command...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don’t agree at all.
Provide specific evidence: otherwise it just sounds like the usual moan. With racist/sexist dog whistle included.
There was an interesting piece on the website about a lifelong Democrat who’s now switching to Trump having voted Clinton last time.
And there are numerous visits to and interviews from Trump country.
Provide specific evidence: otherwise it just sounds like the usual moan. With racist/sexist dog whistle included.
There was an interesting piece on the website about a lifelong Democrat who’s now switching to Trump having voted Clinton last time.
And there are numerous visits to and interviews from Trump country.
“ Keeling over in office is not a good idea, after all”
There is absolutely no suggestion that Joe Biden will “keel over” in office.
His mum lived to be 93, his dad to 87, so he had longevity in his genes.
There’s no particular history of presidents dying in office anyway. Biden would certainly be a record breaker (beating Trump’s record) but entering the Oval Office seems to a prelude to becoming a nonagenarian, if nothing else, if you look at Ford, Bush snr, Carter etc in recent times.
There is absolutely no suggestion that Joe Biden will “keel over” in office.
His mum lived to be 93, his dad to 87, so he had longevity in his genes.
There’s no particular history of presidents dying in office anyway. Biden would certainly be a record breaker (beating Trump’s record) but entering the Oval Office seems to a prelude to becoming a nonagenarian, if nothing else, if you look at Ford, Bush snr, Carter etc in recent times.
As I’ve said before, Biden has been trying for the presidency for 30 plus years.
On a personal level, why would he step down a year or so after taking office? That makes no sense.
Politically it makes little sense either: Kamala Harris would be an unelected president and you can be sure the mid to far right wing of American opinion would not be slow to mouth the appalling conspiracy theory that it was all a plot to install a blank woman shock horror in the White (note) House
On a personal level, why would he step down a year or so after taking office? That makes no sense.
Politically it makes little sense either: Kamala Harris would be an unelected president and you can be sure the mid to far right wing of American opinion would not be slow to mouth the appalling conspiracy theory that it was all a plot to install a blank woman shock horror in the White (note) House
“ These elections have become so divisive that most of the silent majority keep quiet & just vote - Trump will win, I have no doubts”
It’s very different this time. The polls are much worse for Trump for one thing. Clinton never got close to the figures Biden has been getting consistently. Trump is no longer the outsider people are willing to give a chance.
Biden is not the divisive candidate - crucially among Democrats voters - that Clinton was. Many abstained last time. Trump’s support among older people has also unsurprisingly collapsed.
The “silent majority” is not, nor has it ever been, some mythical Trumpian, apologistic constituency. If anything the silent majority are the younger potentially democrat voters who don’t often vote. Why else would the Biden campaign be urging people simply to vote while the Trump campaign continually complaints about voting irregularity, and worse, suggesting “patrolling” of polling systems by God knows who? The larger the turnout the more that’s likely to go against Trump, and with more than half the numbers of 2016 having already cast their vote ...
It’s very different this time. The polls are much worse for Trump for one thing. Clinton never got close to the figures Biden has been getting consistently. Trump is no longer the outsider people are willing to give a chance.
Biden is not the divisive candidate - crucially among Democrats voters - that Clinton was. Many abstained last time. Trump’s support among older people has also unsurprisingly collapsed.
The “silent majority” is not, nor has it ever been, some mythical Trumpian, apologistic constituency. If anything the silent majority are the younger potentially democrat voters who don’t often vote. Why else would the Biden campaign be urging people simply to vote while the Trump campaign continually complaints about voting irregularity, and worse, suggesting “patrolling” of polling systems by God knows who? The larger the turnout the more that’s likely to go against Trump, and with more than half the numbers of 2016 having already cast their vote ...
// At the last UK general election we were told by some polls that magic grandpa was heading for number 10 ! //
This isn't true, though. The last polls that showed any kind of Labour lead, prior to the 2019 election, were in July, when Boris Johnson had been PM for about three days. Before then, there was a two-month period where LibDems, The Brexit Party, Labour and the Tories had all led at some point -- which is actually quite reasonable, considering the chaos at the time. After that, there was a period of polling that saw the Tory lead steadily increase, so that by the time of the election, the polling average was something like a 10-point lead for the Tories, which matched the election result fairly well.
Why not stick to a factual reason to be dubious of polling, rather than a made-up one? You could, for example, cite the 2016 US election -- although, even then, the scale of the polling error has been greatly exaggerated.
This isn't true, though. The last polls that showed any kind of Labour lead, prior to the 2019 election, were in July, when Boris Johnson had been PM for about three days. Before then, there was a two-month period where LibDems, The Brexit Party, Labour and the Tories had all led at some point -- which is actually quite reasonable, considering the chaos at the time. After that, there was a period of polling that saw the Tory lead steadily increase, so that by the time of the election, the polling average was something like a 10-point lead for the Tories, which matched the election result fairly well.
Why not stick to a factual reason to be dubious of polling, rather than a made-up one? You could, for example, cite the 2016 US election -- although, even then, the scale of the polling error has been greatly exaggerated.
jim; YouGov put Corbyn ahead by 1-3 points. I didn't make it up!
https:/
https:/
