Greg Clarke resigns as FA chairman

[BigFatPie]

So you know the motivations of all of the thousands of people on that march? Every single one?

Eh?? Are you being serious? I suppose we don’t know the individual motivations of everyone who attended the Nuremberg rallies either, but we could hazard a guess they weren’t there just for the uniforms. Maybe I’m being too harsh, maybe the lads who went out on NF marches in the 70s were pinko liberals who were actually in favour of more immigration. You’re being much more kind to those people than you are to the BLM movement which according to you mostly consists of Trojan horse Marxists.

I’m sure the *plan* for the Dems was to win every state in the electoral college, keep the house, and smash the senate. We don’t really judge electoral success by that sort of measure though do we? Comfortably winning the presidency, keeping the house and still being in with a chance of flipping the senate sounds like a good night to me, though it obviously doesn’t fit in with your ‘wokeness is destroying liberal democracy’ narrative.

I see you’re happy to accept anecdotal evidence as proof of your Ferguson effect. I thought you accepted ‘lived experience’ as evidence of nothing? Ok if it bolsters you’re preconceived viewpoint eh?

Sounds like you might be on to something with your white people giving other white people jobs theory. Does that count as racism, because it seems like the dictionary definition to me. What if that theory was also prevalent in other areas of life? But that can’t be right because then ‘white privilege’ would actually be a thing, and as James Lindsay or some other white bloke told you, that doesn’t exist.

I’ll answer your south Asian football thing with a straight face. I’ll go for the fact that football isn’t sufficiently as big a thing in those communities for enough people to be playing at a high enough level to get professional players come through. There’s over 1bn people in India, and AFAIK they’ve never got near a World Cup. What do you think?

[drillerpie]

Eh?? Are you being serious? I suppose we don’t know the individual motivations of everyone who attended the Nuremberg rallies either, but we could hazard a guess they weren’t there just for the uniforms. Maybe I’m being too harsh, maybe the lads who went out on NF marches in the 70s were pinko liberals who were actually in favour of more immigration. You’re being much more kind to those people than you are to the BLM movement which according to you mostly consists of Trojan horse Marxists.

I don't think BLM mostly consists of Trojan horse Marxists, I think it was conceived by and in many cases is run by Trojan horse Marxists.

Also, when British TV presenters are obliged to wear MAGA hats at work or risk losing their jobs, or when British Trump supporters are allowed to march through London in breach of lockdown with no criticism from the police, or when people are sacked from their jobs for criticising Trump, I'll start worrying more about Trump.

Not sure that Nuremberg comparisons are entirely appropriate, but your differing opinion of actions depending on which side of the political spectrum carries them out is striking; when one side beats up journalists, beats up police, intimidates people into not attending events, destroys property you refuse to believe they even exist, while if the other side plans a march, or goes on a march, you feel the need to post about it as if they are public enemy no.1.

I’m sure the *plan* for the Dems was to win every state in the electoral college, keep the house, and smash the senate. We don’t really judge electoral success by that sort of measure though do we? Comfortably winning the presidency, keeping the house and still being in with a chance of flipping the senate sounds like a good night to me, though it obviously doesn’t fit in with your ‘wokeness is destroying liberal democracy’ narrative.

A bit of reduction to the absurd ("no election is comfortable unless you win every vote") followed by a blatant lie (the result was a comfortable win). All to allow yourself to continue thinking that refusal to disown riots and looting doesn't come back to haunt you at elections.

Before the election Biden had a consistent double digit lead, but ended up winning the popular vote by 3.4%.

The Democrats were hoping for a blue wave and to take control of the Senate. Considering the sky high poll ratings and the fact they were up against a president with historically bad approval ratings, who has been impeached, in the middle of a pandemic, this was a reasonable assumption.

They didn't (and now almost certainly won't) win the Senate, thanks to voters who voted against Trump for president, but then against the Democrats down the ballot.

They won Georgia (16 EC votes) by 14,000 votes, Arizona (11 EC) by 11,000 votes, and Wisconsin (10 EC) by 20,000 votes. That's three states all won by fractions of a percentage point.

A 45,000 vote-swing, spread over three states, in a country of 350 million people, would've put Trump on 269 electoral college votes, one from victory. Another 80,000 vote swing would've won him Pennsylvania and the election.

I'm afraid I can't take your assertion that it was a comfortable win seriously at all.

I see you’re happy to accept anecdotal evidence as proof of your Ferguson effect. I thought you accepted ‘lived experience’ as evidence of nothing? Ok if it bolsters you’re preconceived viewpoint eh?

I linked to academic research papers written by statisticians and the like to support my claim. Your argument seems to be based on a Wikipedia page you couldn't be bothered to read properly.

I don't think you're discussing this topic in good faith anyway, but just in case you are, let me naively ask you again: what evidence are you basing your denial of the Ferguson Effect on, and what other explanations can you offer for current trends in crime statistics that the Ferguson Effect would seem to explain perfectly?

Sounds like you might be on to something with your white people giving other white people jobs theory. Does that count as racism, because it seems like the dictionary definition to me. What if that theory was also prevalent in other areas of life? But that can’t be right because then ‘white privilege’ would actually be a thing, and as James Lindsay or some other white bloke told you, that doesn’t exist.

I think the theory goes that people choose the people most like them across a number of dimensions, not just race, and this even happens between people of the same race.

If that were true then rather than racism and white privilege I'd call it a consequence of being in the majority and having a statistically higher chance of not being similar to a minority, but as I said before the theory seems plausible to me.

I'm also open to other explanations. Are you?

I’ll answer your south Asian football thing with a straight face. I’ll go for the fact that football isn’t sufficiently as big a thing in those communities for enough people to be playing at a high enough level to get professional players come through. There’s over 1bn people in India, and AFAIK they’ve never got near a World Cup. What do you think?

Interesting, this is a rare moment when we agree. From the time I've spent in the company of South Asians I'd have to say they are probably 'under represented' in football because they are much more interested in cricket. Black Horse says it's because sport is more likely to be seen as a frivolous pursuit in South Asian culture.

All three of us seem to think it's about cultural reasons, so would it be misrepresenting your position to say that you think there can be other explanations apart from racism, and that the current trend of finding a statistical disparity and automatically declaring it racism is, at least some of the time, BS?

[BigFatPie]

Driller, a bit strong to call me a liar for using a subjective term like ‘comfortable’ to describe the outcome of the election. Obviously one person’s comfortable will be another person’s tight, but there was this from the AP putting the result into historical context;


Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian at New York University, has compared Biden’s still-growing popular vote and Electoral College margins to those of every winner of a presidential election since 1960. His finding: Biden’s win was right in the middle — tighter than landslides like Barack Obama’s 2008 win or Ronald Reagan’s 1984 wipeout reelection, but broader than Trump’s 2016 victory or either of George W. Bush’s two wins.

The closest analogy was Obama’s reelection, which he won by virtually the same margin as Biden has now.

“Did anyone think 2012 was a narrow victory? No,” Naftali said.

I think historical context is better than the pre election polls you used to judge the magnitude of an election victory don’t you think?

It should also be added that historically, to win as a challenger is a lot harder than to win as an incumbent.

[drillerpie]

Driller, a bit strong to call me a liar for using a subjective term like ‘comfortable’ to describe the outcome of the election. Obviously one person’s comfortable will be another person’s tight, but there was this from the AP putting the result into historical context;


Timothy Naftali, a presidential historian at New York University, has compared Biden’s still-growing popular vote and Electoral College margins to those of every winner of a presidential election since 1960. His finding: Biden’s win was right in the middle — tighter than landslides like Barack Obama’s 2008 win or Ronald Reagan’s 1984 wipeout reelection, but broader than Trump’s 2016 victory or either of George W. Bush’s two wins.

The closest analogy was Obama’s reelection, which he won by virtually the same margin as Biden has now.

“Did anyone think 2012 was a narrow victory? No,” Naftali said.

I think historical context is better than the pre election polls you used to judge the magnitude of an election victory don’t you think?

It should also be added that historically, to win as a challenger is a lot harder than to win as an incumbent.

All you have done is cherry picked a quote from someone who has chosen to analyse popular vote and electoral college votes. He won the popular vote by a lot less than expected, but anyway the popular vote is irrelevant.

If you look purely at electoral college votes without examining the margins, as you have chosen to do, it looks comfortable. If you examine how close Biden was to losing the states he won, as I did, it wasn't comfortable.

I think it's generally accepted among left-wing politicians and commentators that this was a disappointing election for the Democrats. I get that you are willing to bury your head in the sand to avoid losing a debate with me, but I really feel it's just you and the presidential historian you quoted against the world on this one.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this article from CNN (CNN, not Breitbart).

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...020/index.html

[drillerpie]

I'm particularly interested in your reaction to:

"House Democrats went into election night feeling good about expanding their majority, but haven't had the big gains they hoped for so far, with at least five Democrats in seats President Donald Trump won in 2016 losing and several top-targeted Republican seats remaining in GOP hands..."

"Democrats failed to win one of their top pick-up opportunities in Texas' 23rd District"

"Democrats suffered losses in South Florida"


"House Democrats were shell-shocked after they watched their party lose seats, meaning they are poised to hold a smaller majority in the next Congress despite the bullish predictions of party bosses in the run-up to the elections."

""If we don't get our act together, we're going to get creamed in 2022," one House Democratic member who asked for anonymity said on Tuesday."

"Republicans ousted Democratic Rep. Kendra Horn, whose upset victory in Oklahoma's 5th District was a major surprise in 2018 after Trump won the district in 2016. Democrats had hoped that the suburbs outside of Oklahoma City were moving away from Republicans"


"In Iowa, Republican Ashley Hinson defeated Democratic freshman Rep. Abby Finkenauer in the 1st District, another seat Trump carried in 2016 but that Democrats had flipped in 2018."

"Another Republican woman, Yvette Herrell, knocked off freshman Democratic Rep. Xochitl Torres Small in a rematch in New Mexico's 2nd District."

"Republicans also took back South Carolina's 1st District, the Charleston-area seat that Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham flipped in 2018"

"The GOP also held onto a number of seats in districts that Democrats had targeted this year and hoped to flip, even in suburban areas that had looked to be moving away from the President."

"Democrats had high hopes for flipping Indiana's 5th District, just the kind of suburban area they thought was moving away from Republicans... But Democrat Christina Hale came up short against Republican Victoria Spartz."

"Republican Troy Nehls kept a Texas seat in GOP hands by defeating Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni in the 22nd District, an open seat that Democrats were targeting

Republicans also held on in Virginia's 5th District, which initially was only expected to flip if Democrats were having a ver

"With Trump's poll numbers sagging, amid the devastation of the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing economic fallout, the political landscape appeared to favor Democrats in the weeks leading up to November 3, with top Democrats projecting confidence that their party would be in a strong position on election night.

But on the heels of a better-than-expected night, Republicans said the gains they made and the seats they defended were a sign their strategy worked, despite many Democratic candidates outraising their own incumbents and challengers."


"Some Democrats told CNN the party needs to fine-tune its message and begin to push a stronger economic agenda -- or risk losing the majority in the next elections. And others wanted a shake-up in leadership -- namely for Rep. Cheri Bustos, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to be ousted from her job."

"Rep. Filemon Vela of Texas said Bustos should step aside after the "bloodbath" the party endured since a number of freshman Democrats may stand to lose their races when the votes are all counted."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California appears secure in her leadership position despite second-guessing in the

Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat...said of the outcome in House races, "I think there's a lot of people who are disappointed from top to bottom," while contending that the party should sharpen its economic message in an effort to appeal to working-class voters."

Not disappointing at all. No no.

As I said, I think you're burying your head in the sand to avoid accepting the fact that the Democrats' flirtation with identity politics and BLM is unpopular and damaged them at the election.

Luckily though there are some Democrats who get it. If they offer a vision of a unity, and fight for more opportunities for economically disadvantaged people regardless of their skin colour, they will probably do a lot better.

[BigFatPie]

It’s fun that you’re trying to definitively win a debate (how do you ‘win’ a debate, have we got judges ?) about whether someone comfortably won an election or not. You might as well come on here and say the best colour is blue because you say so, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. There’s plenty of evidence to say the Dems are in a good place and it’s the Republicans who should be looking at their performance. 6 popular vote defeats in the last 7 elections?

On the broader conversation, I think It speaks to your wider mindset that the you’ve concluded that both the BLM campaign is conclusively a bad thing and that wokeness must be the reason that liberals aren’t doing well in elections (aren’t they? ) no nuance, no shades of grey. All of the progress that we agreed has happened in the last 30-40 years has been resisted by exactly the type of person who has never stopped moaning about political correctness and now wokeness , from gay marriage to racial discrimination legislation. I’m really surprised that a critically minded person like you has found themselves on that side of the discussion to be honest.

Update ; Just tweeted from the GOP official account;

We will not be intimidated...We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it. And we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom."—Sidney Powell

Holy sh!t.

[drillerpie]

It’s fun that you’re trying to definitively win a debate (how do you ‘win’ a debate, have we got judges ?) about whether someone comfortably won an election or not. You might as well come on here and say the best colour is blue because you say so, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. There’s plenty of evidence to say the Dems are in a good place and it’s the Republicans who should be looking at their performance. 6 popular vote defeats in the last 7 elections?

Comfortable was your word, I said the election was disappointing from a Dem point of view, and you contested that.

To ascertain whether an election was disappointing or not for a political party is not actually difficult as you're trying to make it seem. Personally I'd suggest a good way of doing it is by comparing their publicly stated hopes and expectations with what actually happened.

I pointed out they didn't win the Senate as they hoped to do, and I've given figures to show how close they were to losing the states they won (the four closest states were all decided by a margin of a fraction of a percentage point).

I've provided details of seats the Democrats were targeting that they didn't win (aka disappointments), seats they thought were safe they ended up losing (also disappointing), and quotes from actual Democrats talking about how disappointed they were.

If you have plenty of evidence to the contrary then please write it down here, instead of going off on tangents about relativism. If either of us is invoking relativism is actually you, by denying that an election which is widely considered to have been disappointing for the Democrats actually wasn't.

On the broader conversation, I think It speaks to your wider mindset that the you’ve concluded that both the BLM campaign is conclusively a bad thing and that wokeness must be the reason that liberals aren’t doing well in elections (aren’t they? ) no nuance, no shades of grey. All of the progress that we agreed has happened in the last 30-40 years has been resisted by exactly the type of person who has never stopped moaning about political correctness and now wokeness, from gay marriage to racial discrimination legislation. I’m really surprised that a critically minded person like you has found themselves on that side of the discussion to be honest.

I think it speaks to the lack of substance in your argument that I (naively) replied to your questions point by point and I get this nothing-burger in return.

As far as I can see, you (and posters who hold similar views to you) have got two strategies when discussing this kind of thing. One is to make unfounded disparaging generalisations about people who disagree with you, the other is to mount a weak and unsustainable defence of the pseudo-scientific nonsense which is now considered mainstream wisdom in certain parts of the left.

I've noticed that what pretty much always happens is you start with the first one, progress to the second one, then when that gets difficult you revert back to the first one. All while claiming moral and intellectual superiority.

Update ; Just tweeted from the GOP official account;

We will not be intimidated...We are going to clean this mess up now. President Trump won by a landslide. We are going to prove it. And we are going to reclaim the United States of America for the people who vote for freedom."—Sidney Powell

Holy sh!t.

Trump is a loon and the Republican party turns into a more grotesque freak show with every passing day. That is not what we are talking about though, is it?

If you want to talk about that, start a thread about that and I'll weigh in on your side of the argument.