The ballot in the States is simple: Trump or "Not Trump". Democrats are not going to swing votes based on who the party's nominee is. Most people already know how they will vote; Trump or "Not Trump". There is an ideological gulf between the sides enough to choose.
Is there any wriggle room in the 7 swing states? Aren’t they 1-2% each way? There are plenty of people who don’t do ideology but will vote on personality. Or perceived self interest. I’d love Sanders to stand as an independent but I guess that would just dilute the Democrat vote. Who will RFK’s mad son take votes from?
If Tulip was a Tory minister, this would be be getting wall to wall coverage right now Quote please log in to view this image Daily Mail Online @MailOnline · 22 Jul Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq apologises after breaking MP rules by failing to declare income from a London rental property for more than a year https://trib.al/kaBJ19H please log in to view this image 8:
Kamala lost miserably when she ran for the presidency in 2020. Harris did not even reach the Iowa caucus because she received so little support from the public. She has not done a single noteworthy action as vice president, and people do not like her smugness or signature cackle. People have repeatedly said that Hillary Clinton is also not a personable figure, but they seem to respect her over Kamala Harris. It is too late to present the public with a new face. I firmly believe that the Democrats will begin to release information stating that Kamala Harris has a poor chance of defeating Donald Trump in the weeks leading up to August 19 to open the door for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
James O'Brien is on holiday at the moment from his LBC morning slot and this week they are having various politicians as guest presenters. This morning it's none other than former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, and by **** it's been a hard listen so far. She spent the first hour discussing immigration, which is fair enough, it's an important topic, but the problem has been that she's taken up pretty much all of the time bemoaning the fact that Labour have ditched her ridiculous Rwanda policy. Get over it, Cruella! It would have been good if O'Brien himself had called in.
Starmer took great glee in dumping Rwanda, even though the complaints from the Irish government showed it had a deterrent effect. Now he's relying on his proposterous assurance that he can break all the people trafficking gangs affecting the UK in the Middle East. He won't get close to succeeding, and in the meantime, European nations will continue to offload economic migrants to third party countries. At some stage, people in the UK will remember Rwanda as one string to the bow that Starmer gave up...
Or maybe they'll think "that's another £700mill that the Tories spent lining the back pockets of their cronies"
It was the Tories who paid this huge, ridiculous amount of our money to someone else for absolutely nothing, they seemed to make a habit of that. Anyway, onwards and upwards
Labour should have pursued it, given that a deterrent effect was showing. They abandoned it for ideological reasons, and have nothing to put in its place, but building on Green Belt to house the illegals
Good spot! I hadn’t realised that although not a member of the Democrat party he stood in their primaries, presumably so he wouldn’t dilute the progressive vote. I’d love to see a Sanders v Trump debate, proper NY rumpus. Looks like Harris has the nod, and loads of money, let’s hope she can debate effectively and call out the lies.
