In a three-way race with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Clinton, Bloomberg would receive 28% of the vote. Clinton, meanwhile, would come out on top with 37% while Cruz would take 34%.
I'm very wary of Luntz focus group polls, since all the other national and state polling shows drastically different results, and of course he's a focus group guy not a polling guy.
And even his focus groups are a bit shady (I still remember his focus group after the first GOP debate in which no one voted for Trump and everyone hated him).
And the prize for the most confusing post of the night goes to...
There are times with the posting you just have to start again.
To be fair, that's a Vanilla special. I think SeanF just dropped a closequote tag.
On his point, I think he's right.
Oh I know, I wasn't getting at Sean at all. another_richard seemed to manage to tidy it up a bit too.
I am not sure if I agree with his point. There are certainly some who are my party right or wrong but they are thankfully fairly rare on here (Nats excepted of course).
Personally, I get increasingly irked about the ever more ridiculous bribing of the older voters and recognise that the Tories are even more at fault for that than Labour. And this is despite being no spring chicken myself. If we are to keep these absurd bribes like HRT paying pensioners on free bus passes and TV licences as well as additional allowances and exemption from NI we can at least cut the tax relief on their pension contributions.
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
And why should the rich be subsidised.??. There are loads of people retiring on gold plated pensions whilst the rest have to live on not a lot.. If the rich want high pensions they can bloody well pay for them themselves without taxpayer subsidy. Times have changed from the 90's I wouldn't vote Labour EVER, but on this George is right. Too many people have got really rich and they don't need these allowances..
There was the same whining when MIRAS was cut by Lawson and then removed by Brown altogether.
And the prize for the most confusing post of the night goes to...
There are times with the posting you just have to start again.
To be fair, that's a Vanilla special. I think SeanF just dropped a closequote tag.
On his point, I think he's right.
Oh I know, I wasn't getting at Sean at all. another_richard seemed to manage to tidy it up a bit too.
I am not sure if I agree with his point. There are certainly some who are my party right or wrong but they are thankfully fairly rare on here (Nats excepted of course).
Personally, I get increasingly irked about the ever more ridiculous bribing of the older voters and recognise that the Tories are even more at fault for that than Labour. And this is despite being no spring chicken myself. If we are to keep these absurd bribes like HRT paying pensioners on free bus passes and TV licences as well as additional allowances and exemption from NI we can at least cut the tax relief on their pension contributions.
Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.
Indeed, Dan Hodges lost his eye in a bar fight defending a black guy from racists, and now he's U-Turning on immigration.
PbCom has really just turned into a right wing site where, in light of having no lefties standing anymore, relies on righties squabbling with each other.
I posted last night that I thought it was pretty disgusting that Cameron brought up his dead child in the debates last year to neutralise the NHS, something I have said on a number of occasions. The responses I got back was akin to murdering the child myself.
Cameron is an opportunistic politician- from his admiration to Blair, hoody hugging, migrant baiting, I think there is very little he thinks about other than himself. Which in modern standards is pretty par for the course for a politician. Quite how so many people, particularly those here, lap it up is certainly surprising.
Log-off, and go and have a nice glass of wine mate.
Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?
According to the last actual poll, Bloomberg gets 8-10% of republicans vs 8-14% of democrats and 10-18% of independents depending on the candidate of each party.
Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
I don't think it's as simple as that. Bloomberg picks up the Republican business vote, the Jewish vote, and the moderate Hillary hating Democrat vote.
Interestingly, in Blomberg's reelection campaign in new York, he picked up more that 50% of the black vote, despite being a Jewish Republican
I see that poll says that Bloomberg (logically enough) performs best with independents.... is there a list anywhere of the states with the highest % of independent voters?
Cameron pledged the referendum in January 2013 but as the article says that pledge was by then "long awaited". It was being briefed much sooner than that Cameron was changing course.
It may have taken just over a year between the rebellion in Oct 2011 and the announcement in January 2013 but you don't think Cameron was doing nothing at all in that year until he was spooked by UKIP do you? It's already come out that well before the announcement he'd already much earlier discussed the issue with Merkel and briefed her that he was going to call a referendum, you don't think he did that in January 2013 do you?
All sorts of things are briefed to the media all the time. Not all of them come to fruition, so you can't go back and selectively pick the ones that support your case.
For example, if Osborne goes through with the pensions hike it will be reported as "long expected". If his leaking to the media creates such a kickback from his support base that he backtracks the report will be "listens" and "u-turns". He may, or may not - probably the latter - brief out again that his course has changed. Or he may leave it as a rabbit.
Politics is a game of smoke & mirrors, as much as it is of "fact", and it responds to political pressures.
Indeed but lets pretend for a minute that UKIP hadn't done anything in 2012 (we're discounting their impact) and that after the briefings etc that had followed the rebellion in January 2013 Cameron got up and said something along the lines of "we won't let matters rest [but aren't going to do anything or have any referendum]" then what would the 81 rebels have done? They could and would have made Cameron's tenure as PM utterly unbearable.
The rebellion was big enough that it needed to be dealt with. UKIP are a sideshow to that.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
What would happen if two candidates tied in a state’s popular vote, or if there was a dispute as to the winner?
A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller states. But if a state’s popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, state law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a state to hold a run-off election.
A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), state law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if states have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.
What impact does a candidate’s concession speech have on the Electoral College process?
None. A candidate’s concession speech does not impact the states’ duties and responsibilities related to the Electoral College system.
How many times has the Vice President been chosen by the U.S. Senate?
Once. In the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.
All parties have an element like that.
Political fans do have similarities to football fans but supporting a political party allows some people to think of themselves as 'intellectual' or of 'working for the national good / noble cause'.
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed from
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.
Indeed, Dan Hodges lost his eye in a bar fight defending a black guy from racists, and now he's U-Turning on immigration.
Just saying it as it is. Labour needs to move on as it will not win this battle with the voter
Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?
According to the last actual poll, Bloomberg gets 8-10% of republicans vs 8-14% of democrats and 10-18% of independents depending on the candidate of each party.
Basically, you don't think Bloomberg stands a chance.
Aberdeen received £250 million today from David Cameron in a City deal. It cannot do any harm for Ruth Davidson or the Scots Conservatives in the coming Holyrood election, especially in this area of Scotland
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.
The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.
Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.
As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).
Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).
You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .
Take a look at the comments from PBers in favour of reducing pension tax allowances on the 'rich'.
The 'take it from THEM and give it to ME' mentality runs strongly through them.
I supported this government in taking away my CB, slightly more reluctantly in taking away my PA and have accepted that I will get less tax relief on my pension contributions than I do now in future. I just don't recognise your description. I have accepted that I can better afford the removal of these benefits than those who live on them.
Please David the martyr outfit doesn't become you.
Who do you think you would be financially better off under - a Conservative government or a Labour government ?
How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour help put Labour into government ?
How many of those were there?
Answer the question.
How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour - and taking votes from Labour generally - help put Labour in government ?
It doesn't. Your point is what, exactly?
My point is you were saying that UKIP being a political party rather than an EU pressure group damaged the chances of the likelihood of an EU referendum.
In reality UKIP standing as a political party had the following possible effects:
UKIP gain seats from Con - no effect on the likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain seats from Lab / LD - increases likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain more votes from Con than Lab / LD - decreases likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain more votes from Lab / LD than Con - increases likelihood of an EU referendum
So the issue then resolves as to how much effect UKIP had at the election.
Now I've not made a study but my estimate is the Conservatives did better than expected and gained/held seats in areas where UKIP did well and worse than expected and lost seats in areas where UKIP did poorly.
If that is the case (and I repeat I've not made a study of it) then UKIP standing as a political party helped reelect a Conservative government and so increased the likelihood of an EU referendum.
Have had a quick look and by my calculation:
8 Conservative gains from Labour
UKIP average vote 15.4% UKIP average vote increase 11.7%
10 Labour gains from Conservative
UKIP average vote 8.1% UKIP average vote increase 6.0%
Looks like UKIP hurt Labour more where it mattered.
Comments
And even his focus groups are a bit shady (I still remember his focus group after the first GOP debate in which no one voted for Trump and everyone hated him).
I am not sure if I agree with his point. There are certainly some who are my party right or wrong but they are thankfully fairly rare on here (Nats excepted of course).
Personally, I get increasingly irked about the ever more ridiculous bribing of the older voters and recognise that the Tories are even more at fault for that than Labour. And this is despite being no spring chicken myself. If we are to keep these absurd bribes like HRT paying pensioners on free bus passes and TV licences as well as additional allowances and exemption from NI we can at least cut the tax relief on their pension contributions.
Interestingly, in Blomberg's reelection campaign in new York, he picked up more that 50% of the black vote, despite being a Jewish Republican
Yes one thing in particular, I am coming out in hives
"'Northern Powerhouse' department to close Sheffield office and move 247 jobs to London"
http://tinyurl.com/gpndnyg
In fact, I will do the same.
The rebellion was big enough that it needed to be dealt with. UKIP are a sideshow to that.
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
What would happen if two candidates tied in a state’s popular vote, or if there was a dispute as to the winner?
A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller states. But if a state’s popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, state law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a state to hold a run-off election.
A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), state law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if states have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.
What impact does a candidate’s concession speech have on the Electoral College process?
None. A candidate’s concession speech does not impact the states’ duties and responsibilities related to the Electoral College system.
How many times has the Vice President been chosen by the U.S. Senate?
Once. In the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270
Political fans do have similarities to football fans but supporting a political party allows some people to think of themselves as 'intellectual' or of 'working for the national good / noble cause'.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZ1qPT7WcAEQr_o.jpg
They would be a far worthier read than that produced by most of the media 'experts'.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/30/alastair-meeks-compares-his-predictions-for-2015-with-what-actually-happened/
I think - if its Sanders vs Trump - he might.
There would have been many Black voters who wanted to see Ferrer defeated so that the next Democrat candidate would be Black. As indeed was the case.
Who do you think you would be financially better off under - a Conservative government or a Labour government ?
8 Conservative gains from Labour
UKIP average vote 15.4%
UKIP average vote increase 11.7%
10 Labour gains from Conservative
UKIP average vote 8.1%
UKIP average vote increase 6.0%
Looks like UKIP hurt Labour more where it mattered.