Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results : February 25th 2016
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results : February 25th 2016
Kingswinford North and Wall Heath on Dudley (Con defence)
Result: Conservative 1,456 (54% +11%), Labour 934 (35% +8%), United Kingdom Independence Party 262 (10% -17%), Green Party 52 (2% -1%)
Conservative HOLD with a majority of 522 (19%) on a swing of 1.5% from Labour to Conservative
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In off-topic news, some of the Irish ballot papers today appear to be almost two feet long.
Thanks to everyone who flagged up the Donald at 3/1 on Betfair.
My only previous bet on that market was a rocking 67p on Bloomberg at 130/1.
Just taken a slice.
And yes, thanks very much Mr H.
There is one exit poll, released tomorrow at 7am. They tend to be leak-proof and reasonably accurate. Rumours on Twitter of a second exit poll, not publicly announced by anyone
STV is somewhat proportional to first preferences so they are somewhat useful, but forecasts are only accurate within broad ranges, say 10 per cent of the size of the Dáil!
https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/703282987681632256
GOP
Trump 38
Cruz 15
Rubio 13
Kasich 8
Carson 8
Dems
Clinton 50
Sanders 33
http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_feb_2016_va_primary_elections
GOP
Trump 40
Rubio 19
Kasich 19
Cruz 10
Carson 5
Dems
Clinton 49
Sanders 44
http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/1/files/2016/02/Topline-2016-02-WBUR-MA-Republican-Primary.pdf
I say leans Hillary, however the demographic and economic profile leans Trump.
Watching C4 News they keep pointing the finger at the UK authorities to "do something". yet neither C4 News or the BBC etc hold the French authorities to account? Why are the French authorities given a free pass on this?
Trump 41
Rubio 17
Cruz 14
Kasich 12
Carson 8
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Target_Insyght_MI_GOP_Feb_2016.pdf
Trump 38
Rubio 21
Cruz 16
Kasich 9
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/IL_GOP_Feb_2016.pdf
Emerson
Clinton 60
Sanders 37
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ECPS_SouthCarolinaDemsPressRelease_2.25.pdf
Clemson
Clinton 64
Sanders 14
http://newsstand.clemson.edu/mediarelations/clemson-university-palmetto-poll-democratic-primary-summary/
He runs the risk of hashtag winning in the Marco Rubio sense
Apparently they have been given 3 options with this move from part of the "jungle" *. One is claim asylum, two is move into the containers, three is move to another settlement. It seems that all the do gooders are up in arms at these "limiting" options.
* It is just me or does that seem a bit racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlho6cy3ZdQ
178:360
370:168
Expect him to do somewhat better in OH and PA than Romney ^^;
If you vote Democrat because you want someone who can stick it to the Republicans, arguably Trump has a stronger claim than Clinton after the way he has laid waste to everything the GOP could throw at him.
He'll be a ringer for OGH in a few years !!
“What would you be if you weren’t a prince?”
“A virgin”
No need to throw around insults...a careful reading on my post would have told you that I was calling the European politicians who write the regulation for the City naïve, not Remainders
For example: given that revenue is volatile in a trade based industry, does it make sense to have a flexible cost base or high fixed costs? I prefer the former; our British regulators prefer the former; our European masters have decided the latter makes for sense.
And, to be clear, leaving the EU won't mean less regulation for the City (finance should be a heavily regulated industry given its importance to the economy). It'll just mean better designed and more effective regulation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35672158
Plenty of other stuff like it
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/703296766347714560
Trump is the Rodney Dangerfield of politics.
Donate here: https://voteleave.nationbuilder.com/donate
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35667858
I think the German's (they won't admit it) are probably shocked the scale of those that might be playing nice and honest.
Investment banking 'compensation' has two problems:
1. Earnings are volatile, and to ensure the continued existence of the firm, employee pay should be variable. Much better that no-one gets bonuses than the firm goes out of business, or a bunch of people get fired.
2. A bonus culture brings asymmetrical risk-rewards. If you bet $1bn and win, you get a $50m bonus. If you bet $1bn and lose, well... unlucky shareholders.
By forcing people to pay bonuses with large deferred elements, they tried to tackle (2). But the consequence of (2) is that compensation moved to being fixed rather than flexible, which meant that firms' have more trouble surviving downturns.
I used to work at Goldman Sachs. It was a partnership. There was a guy who sat 20 yards from you whose entire wealth was in the firm. He was rich. But he was also utterly dependent on the firm remaining solvent. He cared about the risk you were taking. One of my current colleagues was a prop trader at Goldman at the same time I worked in research. Every day his partner came over and questioned him on his positions and the risk he was taking. It was his money and he cared.
In a public company, it's the shareholders' money. If you do well: bonus. If you do badly: poor shareholders. In a public company, if you lose $1m, you lose your job. If you lose $100m, you lose your job. If you lose $1bn, you lose your job. The incentive is to gamble; it's fucked up risk-reward.
The Democrats tore down Romney and he was a far smarter, more talented and decent man than Trump is.
He's looking happy because he's got Gove to agree to endorse him after the election, IMHO.
Basically he made the error of multiplying the chances of Trump winning each stage, in fact he gave Trump a 2% chance:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
So his basic error was lets say this:
If Trump has a 50% chance to win Iowa, 50 to win N.H. , 50 to win S.C and 50 to win Nevada then his chances to win the nomination are only 6.25%.
Which is wrong, his chances are clearly 50% not 6.25%.
Like Donald Trump.
That changes things considerably.
I was sceptical (bordering on outright dismissive) of trump's chances back in September. Not sure I'd have had him as low as 5%, but certainly not above 10% back then.
I'm not sure I was wrong either.
Without digging into all the data on past candidates (as Nate presumably has) - I'd assume that in 20 x GOP races minus 6 months, only one or two *Donald* type candidates would go the distance.
Someone earlier noted that JackW has an excellent prediction record. Well, with the number of forecasters on PB, if predictions were made purely randomly, someone would have had a good record over that period by pure chance. Retrospectively, there is no way of judging whether JackW's performance is due to skill or luck, and hence his past record is no indicator for future predictions.
Don't underestimate Trump's own Perot factor, and ability to reach parts of the electorate that have given up on Tweedledum politics...
Edit yes just here on this thread! Doh!
With Trump and Hillary it will be interesting too see if that happens in the GE too.
Guess who is laughing now (about Rubio):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=730KfKhsKsE
A the odds
B the polls
Boring answer, I know!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTwh9Oc1qg
I think those ruling him out for the Presidency are making a big mistake.
Had the great misfortune, having returned with the fish and chips for dinner, to listen to a few minutes of Donald Trump speaking at Fort Worth.
The speech drifted from the insulting through the patronising to the barely credible to the almost entirely incoherent. The thought of this individual following the likes of Reagan, FDR and Lincoln to the Presidency put me off my cod in no uncertain terms.
Apart from the insults directed at Rubio and Cruz, which could be excused as political knockabout, the speech seemed to be all about winning, bombing ISIS (as he called them) and his own narcissistic sense of superiority along the lines of "I'm smarter and richer than you but don't worry because I'll be President".
That there are individuals here who rate him astonishes me - apart from those who wish to provoke a response who I can understand and those with an irrational dislike of the Clintons for reasons I cannot understand, what redeeming qualities does Trump possess ?
I pity the poor Conservative successor to Cameron who might (and let's hope this doesn't happen) have to deal with this numbskull and the group of reprobates who will be in his administration since no one with any sense will want to be anywhere near a Trump White House.
A couple of thousand good redeeming qualities right about now.
Clearly given a two horse race in 08 and 12 pure chance would allow for your "insight" but my ARSE also very accurately projected all the swing states with a fraction of a spitting distance except Missouri in 08 and Florida in 12 - missed by less than 0.5% in each case.
Do you judge that "skill or luck" ?
Only in rugby is this difficult!
He stopped or postponed certain extremely unpopular cuts, some of which he would struggle to get through Parliament in one piece (with even Tories rebelling). That is not the same as splashing the cash. Splashing the cash generally involves boosting new spending, not merely cancelling a cut.
As for what the bloody hell he's doing, the same as what he's been doing for six years now. Year after year cutting an incredibly large deficit.
It's what doomed the space shuttle, they said "oh it's a only a 1% chance that a component fails, then if we multiply it by all components it's only a 0.0001% chance that something goes wrong".
In reality you should not multiply probabilities.
Trump's "outrageousness" is an act.
He does it differently. He cuts across the divide. And he will win.