It's not as though the competition on the GOP side is exactly compelling..
Obama at this point 2 years before he got elected was already in the teens vs Clinton for the nomination. The public interest on Mike Pence is so low they don't even poll him, and they even poll Bobby Jindal because he gets 2%.
That's as may be, but the fact is that all the names they do poll have severe snags, to the point where you can easily convince yourself that it is impossible for any of them to win the nomination. That's the ideal circumstance for a relative outsider to come through from nowhere. In fact in Pence's case it's not nowhere - he was mentioned as a possible contender last time, and he does have a long career in the Republican Party and is a governor.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we should all go out and back him. But I do think we need to keep an eye open for outsiders in this contest.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
Nonsense, it is a complete rant-fest, distorting every single issue with partisan garbage.
It used to be a good newspaper - indeed I used to buy it every day at one point, when the Times went through a bad patch in the early 90s and before the Independent came to the rescue in its original good-quality form under Whittam Smith . But now the Guardian has given up any pretence of being a quality newspaper.
I think there is an now a decent argument that the Guardian is notably WORSE than the Daily Mail: more pernicious, more insidious, more racist, more dangerous.
Some of its op-ed pieces over the Rotherham gang-rapes constituted outright and abhorrent lies, to my mind. And of course it has a provable history of trying to squash Times journalist Andrew Norfolk's brave investigation of this horror. Repulsive.
And then there was Monbiot's screed of hatred directed at the English last week, begging the Scots to vote YES, simply because the rest of us are apparently Fascist pigs, or their mindless underlings.
I would happily see the Death of the Guardian.
Oi! Get in the queue. I was here first.
I read the Guardian from when I was a sixth-former to September 2010. Twenty-seven years continuous.
Then, it decided to embark on the vilification of fully 10% of the population i.e. Roman Catholics. What baffled me was this had never happened when we were actually fighting against the UK and killing people. That had basically stopped 15 years previous.
The way I viewed it was the provisional IRA were never a threat to Guardianistas ensconced in Britain, but Catholic Schools threatened the Guardianista-rich State school sector and, at the time, were paused participate in the 'Big Society'.
When their interests are involved, liberals aren't so nice after all. Quite an eye-opener.
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
It doesn't matter because there's no front runner. There were a half dozen candidates that could have beaten Romney last time round if they hadn't shown up to be incompetents once they ran up a poll lead. Pence isn't an incompetent.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
Pence might not be incompetent but if no one is even interested in voting for him for the nomination then he doesn't matter, same for Thune, same for Kasich.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%. Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
really we should just kick Murdoch out of our media, he's malign.
And yet he runs the one remaining quality newspaper in the UK (or one of two if you count the FT, but that is more a specialist publication than a newspaper).
Nothing wrong with the Grauniad, Richard, excepting that it sings a song you don't like.
You're claiming there's nothing wrong with the newspaper that published this?
That article clearly attempted to intimidate Andrew Norfolk - with barely-veiled accusations of racism - into dropping his investigation of Asian grooming gangs.
And without Norfolk's brave journalism (see his account in the Times), fighting against vested powers who wanted to silence him, we would never have had the Jay Report which told us about 1400 - one thousand four hundred - groomed, raped, abused and tortured white girls and boys.
What is your problem? How come decent people like you can't see the issues here?
Have you read the staff comments? Bet they wish they could erase them now
Quebec is not a good comparison for betting purposes.
The PQ was bought off at the last minute by what amounted to something similar to Devomax. Even so, the result was a surprise.
Quebec does however provide a good comparison if you have a vote in the Scottish Indy referendum and are not sure what to do. After the Quebec referendum the PQ took over the Province and have run the place ever since. The result has been a steady decline in Quebec's fortunes relative to the rest of Canada, accompanied and in part caused by a flight of capital, notably to Toronto.
Of course there's no reason to think Scottish politicians would prove as incompetent and corrupt as those in Quebec, but the Canadian experience is a cautionary for Scottish voters.
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
It doesn't matter because there's no front runner. There were a half dozen candidates that could have beaten Romney last time round if they hadn't shown up to be incompetents once they ran up a poll lead. Pence isn't an incompetent.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
Pence might not be incompetent but if no one is even interested in voting for him for the nomination then he doesn't matter, same for Thune, same for Kasich.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%. Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
It doesn't matter. If Ryan doesn't run, the dynamic will be the same as last time. Paul and Bush will start off in the lead, but it will quickly become apparent that both have views dramatically out of step with most GOP primary voters. The result will be a desperate search for an authentic conservative. Who will it be?
Cruz - clearly too unelectable Rubio - supported amnesty Walker - hugely lacking in charisma (though not a complete impossibility) Christie - pro-choice and represents East coast corruption Portman - big government during Bush era Jindal - laughably poor in person Perry - need I say more? Santorum - bit of a joke
This was quite an insightful Guardian piece from 2011.. just before UKIP started making ground
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.
According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK"."
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
Well if you didn't think it why hint at it? Oh, and I'll post what I like thanks.
I'm curious if someone who perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime might expect the security apparatus to get involved in stopping it.
I don't know. Why don't you ask someone who "perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime"?
Are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
It doesn't matter because there's no front runner. There were a half dozen candidates that could have beaten Romney last time round if they hadn't shown up to be incompetents once they ran up a poll lead. Pence isn't an incompetent.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
Pence might not be incompetent but if no one is even interested in voting for him for the nomination then he doesn't matter, same for Thune, same for Kasich.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%. Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
It doesn't matter. If Ryan doesn't run, the dynamic will be the same as last time. Paul and Bush will start off in the lead, but it will quickly become apparent that both have views dramatically out of step with most GOP primary voters. The result will be a desperate search for an authentic conservative. Who will it be?
Cruz - clearly too unelectable Rubio - supported amnesty Walker - hugely lacking in charisma (though not a complete impossibility) Christie - pro-choice and represents East coast corruption Portman - big government during Bush era Jindal - laughably poor in person Perry - need I say more? Santorum - bit of a joke
Look, the only guys you have to look at are Huckabee (the one you forgot), Christie, Bush, Paul, Cruz and Perry.
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too. So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush. If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
It doesn't matter because there's no front runner. There were a half dozen candidates that could have beaten Romney last time round if they hadn't shown up to be incompetents once they ran up a poll lead. Pence isn't an incompetent.
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
Pence might not be incompetent but if no one is even interested in voting for him for the nomination then he doesn't matter, same for Thune, same for Kasich.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%. Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
It doesn't matter. If Ryan doesn't run, the dynamic will be the same as last time. Paul and Bush will start off in the lead, but it will quickly become apparent that both have views dramatically out of step with most GOP primary voters. The result will be a desperate search for an authentic conservative. Who will it be?
Cruz - clearly too unelectable Rubio - supported amnesty Walker - hugely lacking in charisma (though not a complete impossibility) Christie - pro-choice and represents East coast corruption Portman - big government during Bush era Jindal - laughably poor in person Perry - need I say more? Santorum - bit of a joke
Look, the only guys you have to look at are Huckabee (the one you forgot), Christie, Bush, Paul, Cruz and Perry.
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too. So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush. If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
What odds will you give me that none of those three win it?
I asked about this last week and was told it was just like booing Ravi, Broady or Anderson...
"Moeen Ali was booed when he came out to bat. He was booed when he came on to bowl. He was booed most times he touched the ball. And he was booed either because he is a player of Asian origin playing for England - Ravi Bopara also attracted some boos, though far fewer - because he is Muslim or, perhaps most pertinently, because he is of Pakistani origin and the vast majority of the crowd were India supporters.
On the back of every ticket and inside every match programme it states: "Spectators shall not engage in any conduct, act towards or speak to any player, umpire, referee or other official or other spectators in a manner which offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies that other person on the basis of that other person's race, religion, colour, national or ethnic origin."
By such a definition, it is impossible to justify these boos. It is inappropriate to dismiss them as "banter" - an invidious description used to excuse sexism, homophobia, bullying and racism in many walks of life - and it is inappropriate to dismiss them as a symptom of any rivalry that exists between Pakistan and India.
Nor should we link this with the booing experienced by Stuart Broad in Australia and James Anderson and Ravi Jadeja this summer. Those jeers, unappealing though they were, do not stem from a dislike of origin or religion. They reflected specific issues."
I've been tipping Mike Pence for 2016 for about two years.
My answer to that is simple: "Mike who?" They rate him even bellow Bobby Jindal "Bombs".
My view on this is that it's Paul Ryan's for the taking if he runs, and, if he doesn't, then Pence is probably the best placed if the GOP base is looking round for a non-Bush candidate. Thune also interesting.
Pence might not be incompetent but if no one is even interested in voting for him for the nomination then he doesn't matter, same for Thune, same for Kasich.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%. Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
Cruz - clearly too unelectable Rubio - supported amnesty Walker - hugely lacking in charisma (though not a complete impossibility) Christie - pro-choice and represents East coast corruption Portman - big government during Bush era Jindal - laughably poor in person Perry - need I say more? Santorum - bit of a joke
Look, the only guys you have to look at are Huckabee (the one you forgot), Christie, Bush, Paul, Cruz and Perry.
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too. So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush. If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
What odds will you give me that none of those three win it?
About the same as Christie being cleared from any wrongdoing and avoids conviction of any type. If Christie is a free bird it will complicate things. Also there is a second and third unknown, will Huckabee and Bush run?
Do give you a scenario: If Christie is in jail his support goes to Bush, if Bush doesn't run and Walker has lost his re-election, there is no one for the New York boses to support apart from Rubio, but Rubio stinks and he is unpopular even in his own state and with latinos. If Huckabee doesn't run his support splits 3 ways towards Cruz, Perry and Paul, so Paul gets the advantage.
In short, the odds are currently unknown until the fog around Christie, Huckabee and Bush clears.
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too. So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush. If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
PeterthePunter The Liberals won back power in Quebec this year and were also in power from 2003-2008
Yes, but the result of the changes following the referendum were such as to put the Francophone population in control of the Province and this has remained the de facto situation ever since.
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too. So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush. If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
Although it is reasoned that even if Perry gets convicted by the jury, he can get a judge of his choosing to overturn the conviction. (some justice, ha?)
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
Well if you didn't think it why hint at it? Oh, and I'll post what I like thanks.
I'm curious if someone who perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime might expect the security apparatus to get involved in stopping it.
I don't know. Why don't you ask someone who "perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime"?
Are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
I'm not asking you, I'm entirely uninterested in your opinion. Just in case you're in the habit of forgetting what you did half an hour ago, you barged in on a question I asked Seant.
Rahul Soni @Rahul_Soni30 · Sep 5 "Moeen Ali has told British Indians who booed him that he looks forward to the day when they support England" - fuck off you mug!
I'd be absolutely gob-smacked if MI5 was playing any role in any internal politics. It has not the remit, expertise or people to do any such thing and if it tried then, in this day and age, it would be leaked. If you think that MI5 is so involved then really you need to get over to where ever it is Tapestry hangs out these days with his giant intelligent lizards.
Err, I didn't say whether I thought they were involved or not. Perhaps you should stick to telling everyone (repeatedly) how uninterested you are in the subject.
Well if you didn't think it why hint at it? Oh, and I'll post what I like thanks.
I'm curious if someone who perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime might expect the security apparatus to get involved in stopping it.
I don't know. Why don't you ask someone who "perceives the possibility of Scottish independence as the greatest threat to his country in his lifetime"?
Are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
I'm not asking you, I'm entirely uninterested in your opinion. Just in case you're in the habit of forgetting what you did half an hour ago, you barged in on a question I asked Seant.
Perhaps you need to work out how to use this quote/reply thingy then. If you reply to one of my posts how am I supposed to know your question is aimed at someone else?
The polls suggest that this is going to be very close so turn out ought to be high. But how high is high?
Well, UK GE turnouts since 1945 have ranged from 83.9% (1950) to 59.4% (2001) and have been trending downwards in that time period with the trough being 2001. 2010 turnout was 65.1%. Scottish and overall UK votes have looked very similar over time. So if this was a UK GE the Scottish vote could be guestimated at last time's 63.8% +/- a bit.
But this is the biggests vote that Scots' voters have had in a generation and currently it's too close to call. Being a referendum, every vote counts. So turnout has to be significantly higher than last year's GE.
Quebec had a 93.52% independence referendum turnout in 1995, compared to shouldering GE turnouts of 69.3% in 1993 (UK 1992 77.7% GE turnout) and 67% in 1997 (UK GE turnout 71.4% in 1997). So the referendum added about 25% to turnout compared t0 the shouldering GEs. However GE turnouts have trended down in both countries by about 7-10% since 1995.
If the Indy Ref results in a turnout 25% higher than Scottish voter turnout at the last GE then it will come in at 88.8%.
I think that projection looks too high, particularly with a lot of young voters voting for the first time. But a big turn out looks very likely.
I think it will will be within 5% of 80% and probably just above 80% feels about right. This fits with the bookies assessment. They have 80% as their approx median point. Paddy Power are 5/6 both above and below 80%. Hills are 8/11 < 80% and Evens >80%.
I think or will be 80% + or minus 5%. I think the 10% spread 75%-85% feels much more likely than the <75% band plus the > 85% band. I feel this band is at 60% and 80-85% feels the likeliest result.
I would price it like this. < 75% = 15%; 75-80% = 27%, 80-85% = 33%, 85%+ = 20%.
Ladbrokes 80-85% band is 3/1 = 25%. I approximate it to 33% so the value of this band, in my view, is 33/25 = 1.32 = 32%.
I'm no expert, HYUFD, but I've visited Toronto and Montreal in the last twelve months and stayed and talked with people who were very much involved with the whole process. (They actually migrated from Montreal to Toronto, following the trend.) Even to my casual inexpert eye, I could see Toronto was thriving whereas Montreal was rather run down and depressed. This was not always the case and can be traced back directly to the period since the referendum.
Canada as a whole has enjoyed great prosperity during that period and was one of the few major economies to be unaffected by the debt crisis. (It followed an old fashioned policy of balancing its budgets and regulating its banks!) Quebec in general and Montreal in particular has lagged behind most of the rest of the country over that period.
It's rather sad, and felt that way while I was there.
I dunno, the predictions of 80% turnout....the cynic in me just wonders if ANY political issue (even one as important as this) will fire up as many people as that in this day and age.
Will the polling stations be able to cope with such a high turnout if it happens? After all, a lot of places in England hardly covered themselves in glory even with a rather mediocre turnout in 2010 (don't know whether there were any difficulties in Scotland).
I think you will collect. I preferred however the simpler and safer method of buying turnout at 79% with Sporting Index. I really cannot see turnout being much below that figure, whereas it could be much higher - 90% or more possibly.
If we are going to see a lot of first time votes in the referendum from people who do not usually engage with politics I wonder if that will mean a higher percentage spoiled ballots than we get usually.
I'm no expert, HYUFD, but I've visited Toronto and Montreal in the last twelve months and stayed and talked with people who were very much involved with the whole process. (They actually migrated from Montreal to Toronto, following the trend.) Even to my casual inexpert eye, I could see Toronto was thriving whereas Montreal was rather run down and depressed. This was not always the case and can be traced back directly to the period since the referendum.
Canada as a whole has enjoyed great prosperity during that period and was one of the few major economies to be unaffected by the debt crisis. (It followed an old fashioned policy of balancing its budgets and regulating its banks!) Quebec in general and Montreal in particular has lagged behind most of the rest of the country over that period.
It's rather sad, and felt that way while I was there.
Interesting. Montreal is sometimes rated as the number one city in the world to live in, so I'm surprised.
Comments
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we should all go out and back him. But I do think we need to keep an eye open for outsiders in this contest.
I read the Guardian from when I was a sixth-former to September 2010. Twenty-seven years continuous.
Then, it decided to embark on the vilification of fully 10% of the population i.e. Roman Catholics. What baffled me was this had never happened when we were actually fighting against the UK and killing people. That had basically stopped 15 years previous.
The way I viewed it was the provisional IRA were never a threat to Guardianistas ensconced in Britain, but Catholic Schools threatened the Guardianista-rich State school sector and, at the time, were paused participate in the 'Big Society'.
When their interests are involved, liberals aren't so nice after all. Quite an eye-opener.
Last time they polled Thune, he got the enormous amount of 0%. Last time they polled Kasich, he did better, being dead last with 2%.
Mike Pence is bellow even those guys.
Quebec is not a good comparison for betting purposes.
The PQ was bought off at the last minute by what amounted to something similar to Devomax. Even so, the result was a surprise.
Quebec does however provide a good comparison if you have a vote in the Scottish Indy referendum and are not sure what to do. After the Quebec referendum the PQ took over the Province and have run the place ever since. The result has been a steady decline in Quebec's fortunes relative to the rest of Canada, accompanied and in part caused by a flight of capital, notably to Toronto.
Of course there's no reason to think Scottish politicians would prove as incompetent and corrupt as those in Quebec, but the Canadian experience is a cautionary for Scottish voters.
Cruz - clearly too unelectable
Rubio - supported amnesty
Walker - hugely lacking in charisma (though not a complete impossibility)
Christie - pro-choice and represents East coast corruption
Portman - big government during Bush era
Jindal - laughably poor in person
Perry - need I say more?
Santorum - bit of a joke
"Huge numbers of Britons would support an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery, according to the largest survey into identity and extremism conducted in the UK.
According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK"."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
Are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
I wonder how the numbers differ between Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis?
"Jocky Horror Show"
Walker will probably lose his reelection as governor so he is out, Christie might go to jail, and Perry might do something stupid or end up in jail too.
So obviously I say the top 3 are Huckabee, Paul and Bush.
If the polls were today, Huckabee (if he runs) would win the nomination.
"Moeen Ali was booed when he came out to bat. He was booed when he came on to bowl. He was booed most times he touched the ball. And he was booed either because he is a player of Asian origin playing for England - Ravi Bopara also attracted some boos, though far fewer - because he is Muslim or, perhaps most pertinently, because he is of Pakistani origin and the vast majority of the crowd were India supporters.
On the back of every ticket and inside every match programme it states: "Spectators shall not engage in any conduct, act towards or speak to any player, umpire, referee or other official or other spectators in a manner which offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies that other person on the basis of that other person's race, religion, colour, national or ethnic origin."
By such a definition, it is impossible to justify these boos. It is inappropriate to dismiss them as "banter" - an invidious description used to excuse sexism, homophobia, bullying and racism in many walks of life - and it is inappropriate to dismiss them as a symptom of any rivalry that exists between Pakistan and India.
Nor should we link this with the booing experienced by Stuart Broad in Australia and James Anderson and Ravi Jadeja this summer. Those jeers, unappealing though they were, do not stem from a dislike of origin or religion. They reflected specific issues."
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2014/content/story/778919.html
If Christie is a free bird it will complicate things.
Also there is a second and third unknown, will Huckabee and Bush run?
Do give you a scenario:
If Christie is in jail his support goes to Bush, if Bush doesn't run and Walker has lost his re-election, there is no one for the New York boses to support apart from Rubio, but Rubio stinks and he is unpopular even in his own state and with latinos.
If Huckabee doesn't run his support splits 3 ways towards Cruz, Perry and Paul, so Paul gets the advantage.
In short, the odds are currently unknown until the fog around Christie, Huckabee and Bush clears.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/08/texas-gov-rick-perry-indicted-by-grand-jury/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tom-delay-rick-perry-texas-governor/2014/08/19/id/589687/
Perry is facing up to 109 years in jail.
97 years ago the same thing happen to another Texas governor and he was impeached.
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/17/you-couldnt-make-stuff-1917-either/
Although it is reasoned that even if Perry gets convicted by the jury, he can get a judge of his choosing to overturn the conviction. (some justice, ha?)
"Moeen Ali has told British Indians who booed him that he looks forward to the day when they support England" - fuck off you mug!
Birmingham born Moeen Ali booed by the Birmingham born Indian fans... #madness
The polls suggest that this is going to be very close so turn out ought to be high. But how high is high?
Well, UK GE turnouts since 1945 have ranged from 83.9% (1950) to 59.4% (2001) and have been trending downwards in that time period with the trough being 2001. 2010 turnout was 65.1%. Scottish and overall UK votes have looked very similar over time. So if this was a UK GE the Scottish vote could be guestimated at last time's 63.8% +/- a bit.
But this is the biggests vote that Scots' voters have had in a generation and currently it's too close to call. Being a referendum, every vote counts. So turnout has to be significantly higher than last year's GE.
Quebec had a 93.52% independence referendum turnout in 1995, compared to shouldering GE turnouts of 69.3% in 1993 (UK 1992 77.7% GE turnout) and 67% in 1997 (UK GE turnout 71.4% in 1997). So the referendum added about 25% to turnout compared t0 the shouldering GEs. However GE turnouts have trended down in both countries by about 7-10% since 1995.
If the Indy Ref results in a turnout 25% higher than Scottish voter turnout at the last GE then it will come in at 88.8%.
I think that projection looks too high, particularly with a lot of young voters voting for the first time. But a big turn out looks very likely.
I think it will will be within 5% of 80% and probably just above 80% feels about right. This fits with the bookies assessment. They have 80% as their approx median point. Paddy Power are 5/6 both above and below 80%. Hills are 8/11 < 80% and Evens >80%.
I think or will be 80% + or minus 5%. I think the 10% spread 75%-85% feels much more likely than the <75% band plus the > 85% band. I feel this band is at 60% and 80-85% feels the likeliest result.
I would price it like this. < 75% = 15%; 75-80% = 27%, 80-85% = 33%, 85%+ = 20%.
Ladbrokes 80-85% band is 3/1 = 25%. I approximate it to 33% so the value of this band, in my view, is 33/25 = 1.32 = 32%.
So I'm on!
Canada as a whole has enjoyed great prosperity during that period and was one of the few major economies to be unaffected by the debt crisis. (It followed an old fashioned policy of balancing its budgets and regulating its banks!) Quebec in general and Montreal in particular has lagged behind most of the rest of the country over that period.
It's rather sad, and felt that way while I was there.
Will the polling stations be able to cope with such a high turnout if it happens? After all, a lot of places in England hardly covered themselves in glory even with a rather mediocre turnout in 2010 (don't know whether there were any difficulties in Scotland).
I think you will collect. I preferred however the simpler and safer method of buying turnout at 79% with Sporting Index. I really cannot see turnout being much below that figure, whereas it could be much higher - 90% or more possibly.
twitter.com/TenaciousTory/status/508722125361119232/photo/1
Night
lol! like.
I will revise to <75% = 16%, 75-80% = 28%, 80-85% = 35%, 85%+ = 21%.
80-85% band value = 35/25 = 1.40 = 40%.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-foreign-office-devo-units-drive-to-kill-off-independence.23269484
I'd heard the same, but it's changed, I assure you. The people I was with confirmed it. But you can see all the signs of it.
Very disappointing.
80/85 is the value. Over 85 is the danger.
Hopefully the union hasn't disintegrated while i've been off the grid.
The higher the turnout the less weight the grey vote carries. At 80 to 82% level its usual significance completely disappears.
I'd look at working-age groups if I were you.