Despite being in favour of soft power - its the rising number of stories like this that makes me wish to chop the DfiD budget. This isn't helping anyone.
The choice of recipients has often proven unwise. For example, Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor to Tanzania, where the opposition recently boycotted an election on the island of Zanzibar. Today we report that the US, which has a commitment to democracy as a precondition to an aid programme to the country, announced that it would be withdrawing £331 million of development funds in protest at Tanzania’s authoritarian turn. Britain, by contrast, has made no indication that its assistance will stop. This is typical. Last year, Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, rewrote his nation’s constitution to keep himself in power. Dfid carried on as normal.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!
How is this man about to win the GOP nomination?
It makes no sense.
He makes no sense.
It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would say in his pitch to become primary school prefect.
It's at that level of logic.
Dear God.
I suspect his supporters would cut him some slack if there are a few little practical difficulties - the guy's on our side, he's doing his best, it's the damned Congress/Supreme Court/Muslims getting in the way.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
For those interested in the works of the Libertarian Party and wondering about the generic 3rd choices between Hillary and the GOP, here are the frontrunner candidates for their nomination:
Garry Johnson: Former republican Governor of New Mexico, 2012 Libertarian nominee got 0.99% then, he has the most extreme Ron Paul policies.
Austin Petersen: Founder and CEO of Stonegait LLC, generic Ron Paul policies.
Darryl Perry: Owner and Managing Editor of Free Press Publications, wants to abolish the USA, enough said.
John McAfee: Founder of McAfee, famous for the notorious case of the murder of his neighbours and his escape from the police to Guatemala, if you think Trump is crazy well you haven't heard of McAfee.
In short the policies of the Libertarian party are: Abolishing all taxes and government, abolish all forms of social security and pensions, legalize prostitution and drugs.
So as you can see they are appealing to an extremely small slice of the population, hence they struggle to get more than 1%.
It is interesting how large a difference there is between US and UK strands of Libertarianism. For all that I often claim the UK and Europe are culturally and politically very different it is undeniable that British Libertarianism is significantly influenced by continental philosophies which I think moderate it markedly when compared to the US version.
The typical establishment Republican is the Old Man of OCP from Robocop. The typical american Libertarian are the ones under the Old Man inside OCP from Robocop (mostly the bad guys from the movie).
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!
How is this man about to win the GOP nomination?
It makes no sense.
He makes no sense.
It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would say in his pitch to become primary school prefect.
It's at that level of logic.
Dear God.
I suspect his supporters would cut him some slack if there are a few little practical difficulties - the guy's on our side, he's doing his best, it's the damned Congress/Supreme Court/Muslims getting in the way.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Despite being in favour of soft power - its the rising number of stories like this that makes me wish to chop the DfiD budget. This isn't helping anyone.
The choice of recipients has often proven unwise. For example, Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor to Tanzania, where the opposition recently boycotted an election on the island of Zanzibar. Today we report that the US, which has a commitment to democracy as a precondition to an aid programme to the country, announced that it would be withdrawing £331 million of development funds in protest at Tanzania’s authoritarian turn. Britain, by contrast, has made no indication that its assistance will stop. This is typical. Last year, Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, rewrote his nation’s constitution to keep himself in power. Dfid carried on as normal.
Whether we're spending our full budget, a bigger budget or a smaller budget the money needs to be spent wisely. The issue here is quality not quantity.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!
How is this man about to win the GOP nomination?
It makes no sense.
He makes no sense.
It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would say in his pitch to become primary school prefect.
It's at that level of logic.
Dear God.
I suspect his supporters would cut him some slack if there are a few little practical difficulties - the guy's on our side, he's doing his best, it's the damned Congress/Supreme Court/Muslims getting in the way.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
All of which is irrelevant as Kasich will not get the nomination. (BTW, he would have been my choice)
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Is there any polling evidence for the proposition that (beyond Republican primary voters) Trump does particularly well with white working class males? I know there's evidence he does badly with everybody else, but that's not the same thing.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!
How is this man about to win the GOP nomination?
It makes no sense.
He makes no sense.
It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would say in his pitch to become primary school prefect.
It's at that level of logic.
Dear God.
I suspect his supporters would cut him some slack if there are a few little practical difficulties - the guy's on our side, he's doing his best, it's the damned Congress/Supreme Court/Muslims getting in the way.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
That is excellent analysis. But I must admit, I fear that he has a very hard 43% base, but will struggle to win over undecideds. In particular, I think he'll lose women by a massive margin.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Is there any polling evidence for the proposition that (beyond Republican primary voters) Trump does particularly well with white working class males? I know there's evidence he does badly with everybody else, but that's not the same thing.
The main evidence that I can see, and I have not looked hard at all, is the massive increase in participation in the GOP primaries over the 2012 cycle. But that only proves that the most engaged are engaging more, not that he is increasing his pool in the electorate at large.
I think the only interesting question is whether the GOP would ever choose someone other than Trump or Cruz. My answer is no, but the markets say otherwise.
I think we only get to a contested, let alone brokered, convention, if the powers that be unite behind Cruz. From there to dumping him seems a big jump.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Wisconsin has suffered a great loss of jobs and trade, but if I win, all of the bad things happening in the U.S. will be rapidly reversed!
How is this man about to win the GOP nomination?
It makes no sense.
He makes no sense.
It's the sort of thing a 10 year old would say in his pitch to become primary school prefect.
It's at that level of logic.
Dear God.
I suspect his supporters would cut him some slack if there are a few little practical difficulties - the guy's on our side, he's doing his best, it's the damned Congress/Supreme Court/Muslims getting in the way.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful busines
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
All of which is irrelevant as Kasich will not get the nomination. (BTW, he would have been my choice)
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Is there any polling evidence for the proposition that (beyond Republican primary voters) Trump does particularly well with white working class males? I know there's evidence he does badly with everybody else, but that's not the same thing.
He polls best in general election polls with non college educated white males
If you want to compare the referendums it's best to use the long term numbers and trends.
In the scottish referendum NO never dropped bellow 41, Yes only started to push into the 40's within the last 2 months. There was a hard core electorate for NO under any circumstances, which carried the day.
In the case of the AV referendum, it started of with an almost 2-1 advantage for AV and they ended up losing by 2-1. It was obvious that the popularity of AV was linked to the popularity of the people who presented it, as the LD plunged so did AV.
In the case of the EU referendum it started with an almost 2-1 advantage for Remain and now they are 50/50. It is obvious that the popularity of Remain is linked to the popularity of the people who present it, as the government's number go so will Remain.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Is there any polling evidence for the proposition that (beyond Republican primary voters) Trump does particularly well with white working class males? I know there's evidence he does badly with everybody else, but that's not the same thing.
He polls best in general election polls with non college educated white males
Compared to how he polls with other groups yes, but like I say that's a different question.
I think it is more to do with most of the electorate choosing their politics by proxies, rather than by detailed consideration of policy proposals of the candidate. In this case, Trump has chosen two very powerful proxies:
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people). 2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
Trump engages white working class males but Kasich generally beats Hillary in most polls while Hillary beats Trump
Is there any polling evidence for the proposition that (beyond Republican primary voters) Trump does particularly well with white working class males? I know there's evidence he does badly with everybody else, but that's not the same thing.
He polls best in general election polls with non college educated white males
Compared to how he polls with other groups yes, but like I say that's a different question.
Exactly. Is he polling exceptionally well with them, or just least worst with them?
ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result
ICM was
Yes: 34% No: 45% Undecided: 21%
Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.
3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided
And 3 months before the AV referendum it had it 50/50. And now they have Remain 51/49.
3 months out tells us nothing, it's the long term trend that matters.
I'm not sure there has been much of a trend: six months ago, the on-line polls had small leads for Leave, and the phone polls had big leads for Remain. Now, we've seen the (obviously) wrong big phone leads come in.
We can take heart that Project Fear has been a failure so far. And I also like the differential enthusiasm between the groups. But on the other hand, we all know that Don't Knows tend to go for the status quo. What I want to be seeing is the number of DKs falling by 3% per week, with 1% of that going to Remain, and 2% to Leave.
I hope W.Indies win - it would be a great shot in the arm for them.
England is a strange one - they don't really want to embrace the changes that have happened in cricket such as the IPL and India being the new home of cricket - colonial mentality I guess...
ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result
ICM was
Yes: 34% No: 45% Undecided: 21%
Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.
3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided
And 3 months before the AV referendum it had it 50/50. And now they have Remain 51/49.
3 months out tells us nothing, it's the long term trend that matters.
I'm not sure there has been much of a trend: six months ago, the on-line polls had small leads for Leave, and the phone polls had big leads for Remain. Now, we've seen the (obviously) wrong big phone leads come in.
We can take heart that Project Fear has been a failure so far. And I also like the differential enthusiasm between the groups. But on the other hand, we all know that Don't Knows tend to go for the status quo. What I want to be seeing is the number of DKs falling by 3% per week, with 1% of that going to Remain, and 2% to Leave.
I see no evidence that the phone polls are or were obviously wrong. Last year the phone polls were more accurate than the deluge of online polls but were frequently seen as outliers due to an assumption the online polls couldn't all be wrong (which they were).
EDIT: Not to say they're not wrong and right now I hope they were but its not obvious to me that they definitely were.
If you want to compare the referendums it's best to use the long term numbers and trends.
In the scottish referendum NO never dropped bellow 41, Yes only started to push into the 40's within the last 2 months. There was a hard core electorate for NO under any circumstances, which carried the day.
In the case of the AV referendum, it started of with an almost 2-1 advantage for AV and they ended up losing by 2-1. It was obvious that the popularity of AV was linked to the popularity of the people who presented it, as the LD plunged so did AV.
In the case of the EU referendum it started with an almost 2-1 advantage for Remain and now they are 50/50. It is obvious that the popularity of Remain is linked to the popularity of the people who present it, as the government's number go so will Remain.
Half the Tory Party back Leave Corbyn backs Remain so that does not necessarily follow
We can take heart that Project Fear has been a failure so far. And I also like the differential enthusiasm between the groups. But on the other hand, we all know that Don't Knows tend to go for the status quo. What I want to be seeing is the number of DKs falling by 3% per week, with 1% of that going to Remain, and 2% to Leave.
The problem there, Robert, is that the status quo (ante) could be either as we are now, or as we were before.
I hope W.Indies win - it would be a great shot in the arm for them.
England is a strange one - they don't really want to embrace the changes that have happened in cricket such as the IPL and India being the new home of cricket - colonial mentality I guess...
Why cannot it not just be conservative thinking and still, unlike most places, liking Test cricket? Why does colonialism need to enter into it at all?
Leicester have to be nailed on favourites now surely for the league? 7 points clear with only 6 games to go. They have a tough run-in but four victories guarantees the title even if Spurs win all their remaining games.
Fair points, although as I understand it those 45%-40% figures are raw and not adjusted for voting intention, social class, or any other axis of differentiation.
The holding of the vote during the Glastonbury music festival may push it out of the thoughts of many young people, who according to pollsters are more likely to vote Remain.
Could the Anti-Metrication board, set up in 1970, get the last laugh?
They were founded by John Michell, one of the big promoters of "New Age" interest in Glastonbury, a long-time hippy Atlantisist (spelling intended), and later an open follower of the fascist "radical traditionalist" Julius Evola (a Europeanist, but hardly in the sense of today's EU).
I'm a leftwinger and I don't find the prospect appetising in the least, but it may well come about.
I hope W.Indies win - it would be a great shot in the arm for them.
England is a strange one - they don't really want to embrace the changes that have happened in cricket such as the IPL and India being the new home of cricket - colonial mentality I guess...
Why cannot it not just be conservative thinking and still, unlike most places, liking Test cricket? Why does colonialism need to enter into it at all?
I've never understood why I'm supposed to care about another country's domestic competition.
As for the new home of cricket, that is laughable as long as they're holding the game back by obstructing DRS.
ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result
ICM was
Yes: 34% No: 45% Undecided: 21%
Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.
3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided
That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.
We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.
The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling
That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.
However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.
I hope W.Indies win - it would be a great shot in the arm for them.
England is a strange one - they don't really want to embrace the changes that have happened in cricket such as the IPL and India being the new home of cricket - colonial mentality I guess...
Why cannot it not just be conservative thinking and still, unlike most places, liking Test cricket? Why does colonialism need to enter into it at all?
I've never understood why I'm supposed to care about another country's domestic competition.
As for the new home of cricket, that is laughable as long as they're holding the game back by obstructing DRS.
I like the IPL as I like T20 (though I prefer Test Cricket), but being angry at the 'home of cricket' thing is just nonsense, as that has no definition anyway.
Anyway, looks like the current good run is over, but that's fine, getting to the final was good.
ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result
ICM was
Yes: 34% No: 45% Undecided: 21%
Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.
3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided
That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.
We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.
The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling
That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.
However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.
Indeed, 'just so' stories crafted to the facts after an event have no predictive value.
We can take heart that Project Fear has been a failure so far. And I also like the differential enthusiasm between the groups. But on the other hand, we all know that Don't Knows tend to go for the status quo. What I want to be seeing is the number of DKs falling by 3% per week, with 1% of that going to Remain, and 2% to Leave.
The problem there, Robert, is that the status quo (ante) could be either as we are now, or as we were before.
ICM had it 55 No 45 Yes at about this point on indyref and that was the result
ICM was
Yes: 34% No: 45% Undecided: 21%
Which, ignoring the 1 in 5 people who were undecided, was 43/57.
3 months before polling it was 55 45 excluding undecided
That was fieldwork starting 101 days before polling, the one I quoted was 73 days before polling.
We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.
The point is the result was predicted by ICM almost exactly months before polling
That's random number out of a hat though - given enough random samples and someone will 'get it right'.
However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.
Nonetheless it shows polling even this far out cannot be dismissed
Fair points, although as I understand it those 45%-40% figures are raw and not adjusted for voting intention, social class, or any other axis of differentiation.
The holding of the vote during the Glastonbury music festival may push it out of the thoughts of many young people, who according to pollsters are more likely to vote Remain.
Could the Anti-Metrication board, set up in 1970, get the last laugh?
They were founded by John Michell, one of the big promoters of "New Age" interest in Glastonbury, a long-time hippy Atlantisist (spelling intended), and later an open follower of the fascist "radical traditionalist" Julius Evola (a Europeanist, but hardly in the sense of today's EU).
I'm a leftwinger and I don't find the prospect appetising in the least, but it may well come about.
Fair points, although as I understand it those 45%-40% figures are raw and not adjusted for voting intention, social class, or any other axis of differentiation.
The holding of the vote during the Glastonbury music festival may push it out of the thoughts of many young people, who according to pollsters are more likely to vote Remain.
Could the Anti-Metrication board, set up in 1970, get the last laugh?
They were founded by John Michell, one of the big promoters of "New Age" interest in Glastonbury, a long-time hippy Atlantisist (spelling intended), and later an open follower of the fascist "radical traditionalist" Julius Evola (a Europeanist, but hardly in the sense of today's EU).
I'm a leftwinger and I don't find the prospect appetising in the least, but it may well come about.
The poll should be before Glastonbury
Glastonbury this year will run from Wednesday 22 to Sunday 26 June.
My attitude to the polls is to ignore the DKs when the reported figures are for Leave-Remain-DK (I mean, seriously, should we talk of support for DK fluctuating from 4% to 30%?), but to take stock of any adjusted figures that take account of voter-reported likelihood to vote in a more sophisticated way than asking all respondents "Will yer vote Leave? Will yer vote Remain? Or don't yer know?"
Comments
1. I am a successful businessman, a winner. I can run the country well and make it a winner again. Very powerful with those who see America's status in the world as in retreat and with those who have not benefited from the economic recovery (i.e. a lot of people).
2. I am not a professional politician and I speak the truth. The more vulgar my speech, the truer it is; the less professional politician it is, the more I am standing up for the voter. This rings the bells for those who believe that major problem with America is self-serving professional politicians who use government for their own benefit and use political correctness to stifle the voice of the people. Again, a lot of voters.
It may come across as very simplistic and junior school, but if it is effective, as it has been so far, it is as sophisticated as it needs to be. Burdening this message with reasoned, detailed policy proposals would only dilute and weaken the effect.
In short, whether consciously or not, Trump's campaign is demonstrating a far more sophisticated understanding of voter engagement than those of policy wonks Clinton and Kasich.
I think that this was the only route available to Trump which could have won him the nomination. Whether it can work to win the General, I don't know. It has a reasonable chance - if he manages to win back the white voters Romney lost and gain some first time voters from the male WWC, then it has a reasonable chance of winning a big electoral college victory. But there are a lot of ifs. And it makes the prospect of a Trump candidacy no more palatable knowing that his campaign has been shrewd.
The typical american Libertarian are the ones under the Old Man inside OCP from Robocop (mostly the bad guys from the movie).
Whether we're spending our full budget, a bigger budget or a smaller budget the money needs to be spent wisely. The issue here is quality not quantity.
And now they have Remain 51/49.
3 months out tells us nothing, it's the long term trend that matters.
I think we only get to a contested, let alone brokered, convention, if the powers that be unite behind Cruz. From there to dumping him seems a big jump.
This is test cricket, yeah?
In the scottish referendum NO never dropped bellow 41, Yes only started to push into the 40's within the last 2 months.
There was a hard core electorate for NO under any circumstances, which carried the day.
In the case of the AV referendum, it started of with an almost 2-1 advantage for AV and they ended up losing by 2-1.
It was obvious that the popularity of AV was linked to the popularity of the people who presented it, as the LD plunged so did AV.
In the case of the EU referendum it started with an almost 2-1 advantage for Remain and now they are 50/50.
It is obvious that the popularity of Remain is linked to the popularity of the people who present it, as the government's number go so will Remain.
We are currently 81 days from EURef poll which is why I went or that one.
We can take heart that Project Fear has been a failure so far. And I also like the differential enthusiasm between the groups. But on the other hand, we all know that Don't Knows tend to go for the status quo. What I want to be seeing is the number of DKs falling by 3% per week, with 1% of that going to Remain, and 2% to Leave.
England is a strange one - they don't really want to embrace the changes that have happened in cricket such as the IPL and India being the new home of cricket - colonial mentality I guess...
EDIT: Not to say they're not wrong and right now I hope they were but its not obvious to me that they definitely were.
So we are none the wiser.
The holding of the vote during the Glastonbury music festival may push it out of the thoughts of many young people, who according to pollsters are more likely to vote Remain.
Could the Anti-Metrication board, set up in 1970, get the last laugh?
They were founded by John Michell, one of the big promoters of "New Age" interest in Glastonbury, a long-time hippy Atlantisist (spelling intended), and later an open follower of the fascist "radical traditionalist" Julius Evola (a Europeanist, but hardly in the sense of today's EU).
I'm a leftwinger and I don't find the prospect appetising in the least, but it may well come about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-loves-north-dakota-delegate-slate-nabs-endorsement-n549756
He was even endorsed by the only Representative of N.Dakota.
I expected that Trump would get 0 delegates from N.Dakota, I was very wrong.
He may balance his loses from Wisconsin from there.
This campaign is a rollercoaster.
As for the new home of cricket, that is laughable as long as they're holding the game back by obstructing DRS.
However, given that 21% were don't know and turnout was above 79% ( and especially as turnout can never be 100% due to double registration and the like) that means proclaiming they got it right based on people who knew how they were going to vote 100 days out is spurious at best.
Anyway, looks like the current good run is over, but that's fine, getting to the final was good.