As to why it matters: while I wholly agree that smaller, individual donors are very much preferable to larger, corporate ones, the system is inherently inefficient. Because people from across the country donate to candidates who are not in their districts, it tends to favour a handful of high-profile candidates over the remainder. Thus, AOC ended up raising $2m to win a race that she quite literally would have won without spending a dime...her district is one of the safest in the country, and her opponent raised about $4000 (not a typo). Now, the money her campaign (and others) spend certainly have knock-on benefits for other candidates, for issue advocacy, etc. But that's the one area where the GOP and their well-heeled backers have generally done better, simply because they have recognized that, from a legislative standpoint, it's far more important to flood the zone, funding every damned candidate to maximize the number of seats you can win, rather than focusing on throwing money at your personal favourites, many of whom are in races that are utterly noncompetitive.
Thanks for clarification Schad. Essentially, I'm trying to say most of what you pointed out. I'm just not familiar enough with the political US lingo. You'll have to excuse my ignorance. As to Crowley, I did read, hear and see that he has been touted as the main candidate to be Nancy Pelosi's successor, plus he's never lived in Queens, the constituency he represented. I've also seen the very good documentary Knock Down The House, which points out that Cortez beat Crowley on a relative shoestring budget compared to his, all brought about by those small donations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knock_Down_the_House
Crowley absolutely lived in Queens. He was born in Queens, and his listed address was the home he grew up in, which was in Queens. The contention was that, while he maintained an address there, he mostly lived in Virginia; this is a criticism that is often leveled at federal politicians (on paper, you must maintain a residence in the district you represent), and while it's undoubtedly true, it's also largely unavoidable without family separation, or if you happen to be one of the politicians from a nearby state who can commute. She definitely had a shoestring budget in the primary...barely any budget at all, for that matter. It's worth noting that Crowley really didn't spend in the primary, either; it wasn't expected to be competitive. Turnout in House primaries is incredibly low, however (it was 13% in the NY-14 race), which gives an edge to insurgent campaigns; the battle is more to motivate people to turn out at all, rather than to convert your opponent's voters to your side.
Guilty as charged. Take him down. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17...d-court-to-face-prosecution-over-brexit-lies/
Interesting that all this came up as he was going for Premier??? Somebody really held quietly on to that did they not?
Thanks Schad. Obviously I have a fair bit to learn about contemporary US politics. Interesting about the Socialist element though. It seems to have several Americans frothing at the mouth, which is mildly entertaining. I haven't seen any sign that the Democratic Socialists want to nationalise anything yet though. Unless you call having a US NHS nationalising health welfare.
My politics lean toward those of the Democratic Socialists, though frankly I think that they're going to have to learn to play a bit nicer with others. With the manner in which the American legislature is structured (you need at least a majority in both the House and the Senate, plus the presidency, and more states skew red than blue; you need a really broad coalition), I'm deeply dubious that trying to browbeat the Democratic Party into a hard and immediate leftward lurch is effective; there just aren't enough places where that is popular. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party shouldn't shift left, but throwing a tonne of resources into running primary challenges in non-safe districts to knock off insufficiently left-leaning congresspeople seems less important than being in a position to actually pass legislation. It also hasn't been terribly effective; Justice Democrats, the AOC-aligned political action committee, spent $2.5m and endorsed 79 candidates in 2018. Only seven of them actually won, and all seven were in very, very Democratic districts. It's good to have those voices, but it's hard to extrapolate from that success rate to a dominant bloc within the party, never mind an ideological lean applicable to the country as a whole. It's good to have ambitious, transformational goals (especially on issues like universal healthcare, which is pretty popular in the abstract and absolutely nuts to be considered controversial in the 21st century), but it might be necessary to take incremental gains where possible and then build on them.
No not at all you're talking ****e, this has been an ongoing process started well before May started the PM bunfight. The preliminary hearing results being published when available. Don't start with the conspiracy theory's leave that to the Guido bollocks spouters. Do a bit of research this for a start. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ball-v-Johnson-FV-290519.pdf . A lot of preparation and crowd funding prior to the case being presented. Certainly not "held quietly onto".
About what? Theresa May resigning in time for Boris’s court case? You could be right, but anyway Boris won’t be leader, the men in grey suits who run the Tory Party will make sure if it.
Great demolition of Farage in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/...CMaObIEKaatFHAxga0-j_ClY6A4571ImC-UalwPRTcLhU
I may have a different opinion to you and I am aware how long things take............I too could say you are talking a load of ****......and it is not me that is quoting any Guido nonsense. I do have many sources of info........Other than relying on Newspapers.........and I repeat I am suspicious of the timing of all this. Incidentally you should not believe I am a Johnson supporter because I am far from it.
In truth I just hope he does not get the vote it would be a worse disaster than what's going on at the moment......
Scotland spends 43% more than England per person on care funding for the elderly, and Wales spends 33% more, according to this from the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48438132
Thats probably because the MPs want another pay rise............or they are saving for the next war or something .
We actually don't spend that much on Healthcare compared to a lot of other countries, despite the universal coverage. Per person we spend under half of the average person in the US on healthcare, but that's because of the ****ty private healthcare system they use that Trump and Co has brainwashed people into think is actually more efficient than a public system. If we matched the expenditure of some other countries, like France, Germany or Ireland, we would be able to get a lot more out of our healthcare system. And given the importance we put on healthcare in this country you would think we would be willing to do it. The amount this government puts into the NHS really is shocking.
If you are aware of the time taken to have prepared the case and the judgement to have been delivered then unless it was May's deliberate timing it's more than likely to be a coincidence. I thought your OP had a touch of the "nudge nudge, wink winks" about it. This is a well publicised case with more to come. I hope detrimental to Boris the Spaffer's cause.
Petition for a public enquiry into the denial of a vote to EU citizens resident in this country. Over a million were prevented from voting: https://www.change.org/p/theresa-ma...tm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_term=cs
