At this stage, I think I'd expect Trump to gain Ohio and Iowa, lose North Carolina, and fall further behind in Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, compared to 2012.
CT and NJ are like NY, but without NY's demographics. Trump polls well in the Mid Atlantic and got 60% plus in the DE primary. NH has historically been a swing state, a lot of Scot Irish settled in the mountains in the north of the state. FL is nailed on, and along with NV is a home state for Trump. MI, OH and PA have always been the Rust Belt states likely to flip. Iowa is too Midwest nice but New Mexico might like a wall on the border.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
Kasich stays in until Trump hits the number to have an uncontested election. If Trump doesn't the GOP have always said their plan was to have a contested vote where u bound voters can vote for not Trump in a 2nd round. Why would the GAP establishment have wanted Cruz? So Kasich stays in until Trump has sewn it up.
Barring bizarreness it will be Trump vs Clinton. He's going to tear her apart...
The only time that Trump has looked in serious trouble has been when he was called out over his attacks on Fiorina. He is going to have to be very careful about the way he attacks Hillary, especially given that she is running to be the first-ever female president and so comes with a fair amount of symbolism attached to her candidacy as well.
Just because Clinton has a vagina doesn't mean women should vote for her. If the symbolism is demonstrating that a woman can do all the things male presidents have done - wage pointless wars, lock up blacks for profit, sell the country to the banks and medical companies - then yes I suppose the vagina has symbolism.
Or perhaps it's not about that. Clinton comes with all the baggage her husband generated - every last scandal will be re-examined. Then let's add all her own scandals and where she gets her money and who she associates with and how successful her Benghazi excursion was. And the emails. Trump attacks hypocrisy and lies and maladministration and she's all that. And more - a weak candidate unable to react quickly and unable to connect with anyone who isn't (her husband's) traditional power base. Sanders vs Trump would have been different but Clinton vs Trump? The right hate her as much if not more than the left hate Trump. He's populist change, she is boring status quo...
I tend to agree with you there. This has been such a roller coaster, I can't tell WTF is going on. Hillary has been very average compared to Sanders. That in itself is incredible.
I imagine this has already been posted, but, if not, it purports to be a Press TV interview from 2009, during which the future Mayor of London refers to Uncle Toms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
Surely Trump's veep has to be a woman? To counter all the negatives surrounding his attitudes to women.
- or at least use the trans-gender bathroom
Who are the possible female VPs? Someone black or Hispanic would tick some boxes?
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
68 actually, but that's not unusual by GOP standards:
1976 - Ford (63) 1980 - Reagan (69) 1984 - Reagan (73) 1988 - GHW Bush (64) 1992 - GHW Bush (68) 1996 - Dole (73) 2000 - GW Bush (54) 2004 - GW Bush (58) 2008 - McCain (72) 2012 - Romney (65) 2016 - Trump (70) - presumably
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Now that the US primaries are effectively over, the only remaining question about the POTUS election is whether the harridan will be trumped in November. She is a weak "establishment" candidate with many negatives and skeletons in the cupboard, who has had great difficulty in seeing off an elderly Jewish socialist in the primaries. She will need the support from the rainbow coalition of outsiders who backed Obama and who chose him over her in 2008. Trump has shown that he is a formidable fighter; the current odds against him seem too generous.
Forgive me for asking, but why did you need to add Jewish there? What difference does that make to your analysis?
Because Sanders is Jewish? Unfortunately that might be a factor for some folks.
Do you think it has been? I'm astonished that he's done as well as he has - a far-left (by American standards) activist who wasn't even a Democrat until last year (IIRC?), running the sole mainstream candidate virtually all the way to the convention. If it was a factor, it was surely a very minor one?
Nobody who has a balanced mind thinks it is a factor. Unfortunately daodoa has repeatedly proven s/he has a real issue with regards to the chosen race. More worryingly, s/he clearly doesn't realise it, a bit like the Labour Party and the Monday Club.
It would not be a factor here but since, for the American elections and primaries, much time is spent debating what sort of Christian voter supports which candidates, religion might be an important consideration.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
There's a hell of a lot of Don't Normally Vote in the US for Trump to try and woo.
Personally, I think the phenomenon of Trump v. Hillary won't be unlike that of Sanders v. Hillary.
He will do better than expected, win in some unusual places, run her close elsewhere snapping at her heels, but she will still limp over the line. And be a weak and rapidly unpopular President.
Now that the US primaries are effectively over, the only remaining question about the POTUS election is whether the harridan will be trumped in November. She is a weak "establishment" candidate with many negatives and skeletons in the cupboard, who has had great difficulty in seeing off an elderly Jewish socialist in the primaries. She will need the support from the rainbow coalition of outsiders who backed Obama and who chose him over her in 2008. Trump has shown that he is a formidable fighter; the current odds against him seem too generous.
Forgive me for asking, but why did you need to add Jewish there? What difference does that make to your analysis?
Well 'black democrat" was significant in pulling in the black vote.
Still done on a regular basis, 4 in April alone, but media strangely uninterested. I'm sure when the first one shows Yes support falling below the referendum level, their curiosity will be rekindled.
O/T, but are the projections to the number of councils that will change hands, rather than seats?
I don't think anyone's done any projections as to which councils will change hands, just speculation as to which ones might. This article might be useful:
Well according to Andrew Teale's exellent site, the Lib Dems got 139 votes in total in Thurrock in last year's elections (0.2%), fielding just one candidate.
So the only way is up, unless they field no candidates at all...
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
There's a hell of a lot of Don't Normally Vote in the US for Trump to try and woo.
Personally, I think the phenomenon of Trump v. Hillary won't be unlike that of Sanders v. Hillary.
He will do better than expected, win in some unusual places, run her close elsewhere snapping at her heels, but she will still limp over the line. And be a weak and rapidly unpopular President.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
There's a hell of a lot of Don't Normally Vote in the US for Trump to try and woo.
Personally, I think the phenomenon of Trump v. Hillary won't be unlike that of Sanders v. Hillary.
He will do better than expected, win in some unusual places, run her close elsewhere snapping at her heels, but she will still limp over the line. And be a weak and rapidly unpopular President.
I suspect that's absolutely right.
I suspect that Hillary will beat Trump fairly comfortably, after a fairly uncomfortable campaign. The demographics will work out well for her. I think she will turn out to be a pretty good POTUS. She has had a few scandals along the way, but so has Trump.
The new ComRes survey for LBC and ITV News London reports that 56% of people intend to vote for Khan while 44% intend to go for Goldsmith - a 12-point lead.
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
In its present mood the GOP base will select someone even more conservative if Trump loses, Haley and Kasich have no chance. Cruz is likely in 2020 in my view, no moderate need apply until 2024
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
Like they so effectively stopped Trump this time you mean, ha ha!
It will be funny to see how vehement anti-Trump Republicans now justify their backing for him.
or Sanders supporting Hillary.
Hasn't Sanders already said he would back Hillary in the GE?
Haven't the foggiest - the Democrat campaign is so boring that I haven't really followed it.
Yes, he has. He's said the level of enthusiasm will depend on her policy positions, but that's just a bit of haggling.
I assume that Trump - who IMO is best seen as an flexible egotist of no fixed opinions, rather like Boris (i.e. not a fascist or even especially right-wing), will now pivot and amaze us all by his reasonableness, except when talking about Hillary. His weakness will be shortness of temper and ample evidence of untrustworthiness when it comes to actually sticking to any policy. In the end I suspect people will think "not really a President".
I don't follow US politics but it seems to me that Hilary Clinton has been complacent, she assumed this would be some sort of coronation.
Closer to home it seems that identity politics is far more important than policy. All I read on here is Goldsmith accusing Khan of being a terrorist and Khan saying Uncle Tom. Its pathetic. This place is a perfect example of people supporting an identity rather than the person themselves. I don't ever read about this govt's successes or failures just more and more posturing and massaging of messages.
Strangely enough for the time being it suits my personal situation, all the Jewish nonsense just serves to turn more people away from voting, which plays into Leave's hands.
We're arguably going to win by default but Remain will only have themselves to blame.
Still done on a regular basis, 4 in April alone, but media strangely uninterested. I'm sure when the first one shows Yes support falling below the referendum level, their curiosity will be rekindled.
As a matter of interest what do the recent polls show in terms of a split?
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
I totally agree. Not Palin. She is long past her sell by date. Megyn Kelly would be a masterstroke.
The new ComRes survey for LBC and ITV News London reports that 56% of people intend to vote for Khan while 44% intend to go for Goldsmith - a 12-point lead.
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
A difficult poll in that it includes 2nd preferences. Does anyone know the expected turnout figures on this poll? At GE about 70%, this is expected to be half. Could that change things. Labour have 9% lead in London typically so this is not far out. Not much of a forecast, but it will be less than 10 points for Khan. Might be as low as four.
Still done on a regular basis, 4 in April alone, but media strangely uninterested. I'm sure when the first one shows Yes support falling below the referendum level, their curiosity will be rekindled.
As a matter of interest what do the recent polls show in terms of a split?
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
Well on past form, you'd be brave to mock them, but it's a bit rich for my palate. She's just plain stupid it seems to me.
The clip shows Sadiq as being the politician he is, a sort of browner version of Blair. I'd assume the' Uncle Toms' phrase was a mis-speak - a shortened version of 'voters who agree with you no matter what.'
if he's now saying that "'Uncle Toms' is racist, he's guilty of hypocrisy. But about 95% of politicians are guilty of that. It does confirms my view that he's in the Blair/Cameron group of being unprincipled. Who knows what he'll be like as Mayor?
But it's only Londoners anyway (smiley face thingy).
Off topic, is there anyone here who knows about breakdown insurance?
I've just had my renewal premium through from the AA: £202.50 for roadside recovery, relay and home start. That's almost as much as I pay for my fully comp car insurance.
Still done on a regular basis, 4 in April alone, but media strangely uninterested. I'm sure when the first one shows Yes support falling below the referendum level, their curiosity will be rekindled.
As a matter of interest what do the recent polls show in terms of a split?
"Are there really Labour politicians hoping for an early general election that could see them lose again? They'd probably describe themselves as pragmatists looking at the prospects for their party, but in short, yes there are."
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
There's a hell of a lot of Don't Normally Vote in the US for Trump to try and woo.
Trump's already broken GWB's record for votes - GW had 10.2m, The Donald is on 10.65m already.
The new ComRes survey for LBC and ITV News London reports that 56% of people intend to vote for Khan while 44% intend to go for Goldsmith - a 12-point lead.
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
A difficult poll in that it includes 2nd preferences. Does anyone know the expected turnout figures on this poll? At GE about 70%, this is expected to be half. Could that change things. Labour have 9% lead in London typically so this is not far out. Not much of a forecast, but it will be less than 10 points for Khan. Might be as low as four.
What evidence is there that Khan's support is less likely to turn out than Zac's?
It will be funny to see how vehement anti-Trump Republicans now justify their backing for him.
or Sanders supporting Hillary.
Hasn't Sanders already said he would back Hillary in the GE?
Haven't the foggiest - the Democrat campaign is so boring that I haven't really followed it.
Yes, he has. He's said the level of enthusiasm will depend on her policy positions, but that's just a bit of haggling.
I assume that Trump - who IMO is best seen as an flexible egotist of no fixed opinions, rather like Boris (i.e. not a fascist or even especially right-wing), will now pivot and amaze us all by his reasonableness, except when talking about Hillary. His weakness will be shortness of temper and ample evidence of untrustworthiness when it comes to actually sticking to any policy. In the end I suspect people will think "not really a President".
Isn't that just an echo of the same misreading coming from the US establishment? Trump has been remarkably consistent in his views on he big issues for many decades. It goes without saying that he has a huge ego but his reason for being in the race is to win and change the direction of America.
The new ComRes survey for LBC and ITV News London reports that 56% of people intend to vote for Khan while 44% intend to go for Goldsmith - a 12-point lead.
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
A difficult poll in that it includes 2nd preferences. Does anyone know the expected turnout figures on this poll? At GE about 70%, this is expected to be half. Could that change things. Labour have 9% lead in London typically so this is not far out. Not much of a forecast, but it will be less than 10 points for Khan. Might be as low as four.
What evidence is there that Khan's support is less likely to turn out than Zac's?
Only received wisdom. In London specifically, Labour have said that Tory areas are likely to turnout 40%, Labour areas 28%. it's not precise on what that means and I have not checked past. But view is Labour voters vote less. Opinion polls tend to overstate Labour and understate Tories. 12 points is big gap though.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
Surely Trump's veep has to be a woman? To counter all the negatives surrounding his attitudes to women.
Finding a running mate who'll do the gig may not be that easy. At best, it's a position that might act as a boost to a 2020 campaign if Trump loses or 2024 if he wins, but the running mate will have to tie themself to a loose cannon in the meantime.
The clip shows Sadiq as being the politician he is, a sort of browner version of Blair. I'd assume the' Uncle Toms' phrase was a mis-speak - a shortened version of 'voters who agree with you no matter what.'
if he's now saying that "'Uncle Toms' is racist, he's guilty of hypocrisy. But about 95% of politicians are guilty of that. It does confirms my view that he's in the Blair/Cameron group of being unprincipled. Who knows what he'll be like as Mayor?
But it's only Londoners anyway (smiley face thingy).
Yes, good luck to the poor things having this fellow in charge. I agree with your take on him - I have him down as another unprincipled charlatan happy to flirt with extremists if it buys him some votes but not really one of them.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
I totally agree. Not Palin. She is long past her sell by date. Megyn Kelly would be a masterstroke.
An intriguing proposition but Trump's been pretty clear that he wants someone who can help him with the machinery of government. I'm sure Gingrich would feature in a Trump administration but would be a controversial VP choice so I expect someone else.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
But Hillary's Ovaries are not going to Make America Great Again in the rust belt.
I can see the Electoral College being very close.
Hillary's advantage in being a woman is not so much that she's a woman; it's that she's a woman running against Donald Trump. He will do something sexist and stupid at some point and that will go down badly with a lot of women across the country who might not like Hillary but who will stand with her against a misogynist.
It will be funny to see how vehement anti-Trump Republicans now justify their backing for him.
or Sanders supporting Hillary.
Hasn't Sanders already said he would back Hillary in the GE?
Haven't the foggiest - the Democrat campaign is so boring that I haven't really followed it.
Yes, he has. He's said the level of enthusiasm will depend on her policy positions, but that's just a bit of haggling.
I assume that Trump - who IMO is best seen as an flexible egotist of no fixed opinions, rather like Boris (i.e. not a fascist or even especially right-wing), will now pivot and amaze us all by his reasonableness, except when talking about Hillary. His weakness will be shortness of temper and ample evidence of untrustworthiness when it comes to actually sticking to any policy. In the end I suspect people will think "not really a President".
Isn't that just an echo of the same misreading coming from the US establishment? Trump has been remarkably consistent in his views on he big issues for many decades. It goes without saying that he has a huge ego but his reason for being in the race is to win and change the direction of America.
Trump is best seen at what he claims to be best at: he's a deal maker. Nick's right, I think, he will pivot. He'll see the job now as sealing the deal with the wider public, so he'll tone some stuff down. There'll be very few policy positions. It'll be all yelling and blustering and 'make us great again' stuff. It's powerful stuff and Hillary is going to seriously have her work cut out. I think she'll prevail and have bet accordingly, but, boy she'll have a fight.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
His base is enough to win the primaries. The question is how much further it extends: his national ratings are appallingly low. This is a marmite candidate par excellence. Hillary is undoubtedly weak but she doesn't scare the horses particularly and while most Sanders voters have no love for her, they'll ride in against the threat that Trump poses (something they might not have done had it been another boring Beltway election).
CT and NJ are like NY, but without NY's demographics. Trump polls well in the Mid Atlantic and got 60% plus in the DE primary. NH has historically been a swing state, a lot of Scot Irish settled in the mountains in the north of the state. FL is nailed on, and along with NV is a home state for Trump. MI, OH and PA have always been the Rust Belt states likely to flip. Iowa is too Midwest nice but New Mexico might like a wall on the border.
Thanks.
We have different views of this. I think Trump will struggle anywhere with a large Hispanic population. I certainly don't see FL as nailed on for him. And his negatives with women will hurt him everywhere.
I think it's improbable (but not outright impossible) that he gets to 270 EVs. I think the current Betfair odds are about right.
A salutary lesson once again for those people who believe what a candidate or Party will say during an election as distinct from what they say and do after the election. Ted Cruz was going to fight all the way to the GOP Convention - expect that he hasn't.
Campaigning rhetoric is just that - it's there to intimidate your opponents and bolster your supporters but strip all that away and for most politicians the endgame is to make the best of the result, favourable or otherwise so generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day - but not until the votes are cast.
Of more immediate relevance, tomorrow's London Mayoral election and recent events haven't so far had an impact. I've yet to see Goldsmith or any Conservative in East Ham and if he has to spend his time holding up the vote in the Outer Suburbs he's already lost.
And yet only 61% of those surveyed were voting for Zac or Sadiq according to the poll yesterday (which the Standard buried in a corner as it was so poor for their "boy"). While I expect that figure to be higher, it's still curious that at least a third of Londoners won't be supporting either Zac or Sadiq (I'm one of them). Yet we are to believe none of the other candidates has 4% which simply doesn't add up.
A 9-point first preference lead widens to a 14-point lead on seconds which is about what you'd expect. The GLA numbers will be interesting - Labour had a very good election in 2012 gaining four members. On the constituency side, the Conservatives should pick up Barnet & Camden but may struggle to hold Havering & Redbridge but unless UKIP plays a much bigger role, I don't expect much other change in terms of seats.
In 2012 Labour and the Conservatives won 21 of the 25 seats between them - for me, the question is whether the 39% non-Sadiq non-Zac first vote translates into equivalent support for minor parties on the GLA lists. I suspect it won't be as large as that but may be enough for say 2 Greens, 2 UKIP and 2 LDs with the Labour-Conservative split 10-9 or perhaps 11-8 if Khan has done very well. If the two main parties are still polling over 80% on first preference, then the minor parties will be squeezed accordingly.
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
Surely Trump's veep has to be a woman? To counter all the negatives surrounding his attitudes to women.
Finding a running mate who'll do the gig may not be that easy. At best, it's a position that might act as a boost to a 2020 campaign if Trump loses or 2024 if he wins, but the running mate will have to tie themself to a loose cannon in the meantime.
Well, given his age his VP will have a decent chance to simply inherit the Presidency.
Now that the US primaries are effectively over, the only remaining question about the POTUS election is whether the harridan will be trumped in November. She is a weak "establishment" candidate with many negatives and skeletons in the cupboard, who has had great difficulty in seeing off an elderly Jewish socialist in the primaries. She will need the support from the rainbow coalition of outsiders who backed Obama and who chose him over her in 2008. Trump has shown that he is a formidable fighter; the current odds against him seem too generous.
Forgive me for asking, but why did you need to add Jewish there? What difference does that make to your analysis?
Well quite. No need at all. I suspect he didn't even do it consciously. It's just another adjective which in daodao's mind is axiomatically negative
Scanning some of the posts this morning a number of PBers need to grasp the realities of the swing state elections that POTUS is and certainly before they lay out (more) cash.
It will be funny to see how vehement anti-Trump Republicans now justify their backing for him.
or Sanders supporting Hillary.
Hasn't Sanders already said he would back Hillary in the GE?
Haven't the foggiest - the Democrat campaign is so boring that I haven't really followed it.
Yes, he has. He's said the level of enthusiasm will depend on her policy positions, but that's just a bit of haggling.
I assume that Trump - who IMO is best seen as an flexible egotist of no fixed opinions, rather like Boris (i.e. not a fascist or even especially right-wing), will now pivot and amaze us all by his reasonableness, except when talking about Hillary. His weakness will be shortness of temper and ample evidence of untrustworthiness when it comes to actually sticking to any policy. In the end I suspect people will think "not really a President".
The new ComRes survey for LBC and ITV News London reports that 56% of people intend to vote for Khan while 44% intend to go for Goldsmith - a 12-point lead.
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
A difficult poll in that it includes 2nd preferences. Does anyone know the expected turnout figures on this poll? At GE about 70%, this is expected to be half. Could that change things. Labour have 9% lead in London typically so this is not far out. Not much of a forecast, but it will be less than 10 points for Khan. Might be as low as four.
What evidence is there that Khan's support is less likely to turn out than Zac's?
Only received wisdom. In London specifically, Labour have said that Tory areas are likely to turnout 40%, Labour areas 28%. it's not precise on what that means and I have not checked past. But view is Labour voters vote less. Opinion polls tend to overstate Labour and understate Tories. 12 points is big gap though.
Labour outperformed the polls in the last mayoral election.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
I totally agree. Not Palin. She is long past her sell by date. Megyn Kelly would be a masterstroke.
An intriguing proposition but Trump's been pretty clear that he wants someone who can help him with the machinery of government. I'm sure Gingrich would feature in a Trump administration but would be a controversial VP choice so I expect someone else.
Someone like Susana Martinez would be a good pick.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
There is an excellent analysis of Coventry local elections on the Vote2012 website from a local . Realistically there is one marginal Conservative ward and three marginal Labour wards , There is also St Michaels where the contest is between Labour and TUSC ( Nellist ) . If the Conservatives lose Cheylesmore and fail to gain any of the 3 Labour marginals it will be their worst ever result in the city .
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Hispanics trending Republican? Hispanic vote share for Obama increased between 2008 and 2012.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
I find the desperation of #NeverTrumpers bigging up a range of increasingly desperate candidates rather touching. When supposed liberals are talking up Cruz in preference to Trump, I can only presume they've no idea what he stands for.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
There's a hell of a lot of Don't Normally Vote in the US for Trump to try and woo.
Trump's already broken GWB's record for votes - GW had 10.2m, The Donald is on 10.65m already.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
I find the desperation of #NeverTrumpers bigging up a range of increasingly desperate candidates rather touching. When supposed liberals are talking up Cruz in preference to Trump, I can only presume they've no idea what he stands for.
Never Trump's are conservative Republicans, I would say mostly evangelical Cruz supporters. While I would never normally recommend going there RedState is a decent place to visit to get some insight on them.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
Yep, that's how I see the referendum, I want to send a message to the on message apparatchiks in govt.
This week has seen some people exposed in terms of what they think which has to be a good thing. I want freedom of speech but I want people to coherently justify their reasoning. The only person who knows if Livingstone hates Jews is himself, if he does then be honest and explain why.
Trump says he'd ban Muslims and explains why, Americans can vote along those lines. Nobody knows what our insipid politicians think.
So now the question turns to: do the Democrats have any better ideas on how to stop the Donald than the Republicans did?
Different electorate will make a yuuuge difference. That is the better market for NeverTrump, particularly as Hillary has relatively few positives to go on so negative is her best bet.
This is going to be one hell of a dirty election.
However, moderates + most Bernie radicals + more women than usual = Hillary victory.
I totally disagree, David. Trump has the happy habit of energizing his base support and bringing out the voters, by no means all Republican supporters, in droves.
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
Not Palin though.
If Trump picks Palin I bet there will be some on here claiming it a genius move that locks up the election for him.
I totally agree. Not Palin. She is long past her sell by date. Megyn Kelly would be a masterstroke.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
Vagina is such an ugly word - I prefer Obama Ovaries for Hillary.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
I find the desperation of #NeverTrumpers bigging up a range of increasingly desperate candidates rather touching. When supposed liberals are talking up Cruz in preference to Trump, I can only presume they've no idea what he stands for.
NeverTrump is in large part a conservative slogan though. They don't want Trump because they think he isn't a real conservative, which indeed he appears not to be. If Trump wins in November it will be devastating for the conservative movement, I think.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
Vagina is such an ugly word - I prefer Obama Ovaries for Hillary.
Now that the US primaries are effectively over, the only remaining question about the POTUS election is whether the harridan will be trumped in November. She is a weak "establishment" candidate with many negatives and skeletons in the cupboard, who has had great difficulty in seeing off an elderly Jewish socialist in the primaries. She will need the support from the rainbow coalition of outsiders who backed Obama and who chose him over her in 2008. Trump has shown that he is a formidable fighter; the current odds against him seem too generous.
Forgive me for asking, but why did you need to add Jewish there? What difference does that make to your analysis?
Just check daodao's previous posts, all will become clear.
The EU is pressing ahead with fining those countries who refuse to take the refugee quota. We have an opt out in justice affairs, but Ireland does not, and they have an open border with us.
A salutary lesson once again for those people who believe what a candidate or Party will say during an election as distinct from what they say and do after the election. Ted Cruz was going to fight all the way to the GOP Convention - expect that he hasn't.
Campaigning rhetoric is just that - it's there to intimidate your opponents and bolster your supporters but strip all that away and for most politicians the endgame is to make the best of the result, favourable or otherwise so generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day - but not until the votes are cast.
Of more immediate relevance, tomorrow's London Mayoral election and recent events haven't so far had an impact. I've yet to see Goldsmith or any Conservative in East Ham and if he has to spend his time holding up the vote in the Outer Suburbs he's already lost.
And yet only 61% of those surveyed were voting for Zac or Sadiq according to the poll yesterday (which the Standard buried in a corner as it was so poor for their "boy"). While I expect that figure to be higher, it's still curious that at least a third of Londoners won't be supporting either Zac or Sadiq (I'm one of them). Yet we are to believe none of the other candidates has 4% which simply doesn't add up.
A 9-point first preference lead widens to a 14-point lead on seconds which is about what you'd expect. The GLA numbers will be interesting - Labour had a very good election in 2012 gaining four members. On the constituency side, the Conservatives should pick up Barnet & Camden but may struggle to hold Havering & Redbridge but unless UKIP plays a much bigger role, I don't expect much other change in terms of seats.
In 2012 Labour and the Conservatives won 21 of the 25 seats between them - for me, the question is whether the 39% non-Sadiq non-Zac first vote translates into equivalent support for minor parties on the GLA lists. I suspect it won't be as large as that but may be enough for say 2 Greens, 2 UKIP and 2 LDs with the Labour-Conservative split 10-9 or perhaps 11-8 if Khan has done very well. If the two main parties are still polling over 80% on first preference, then the minor parties will be squeezed accordingly.
The poll was the full response - it included 7% won't vote and 19% did not know.
So it is Trump v Clinton with Trump now effectively having a coronation after Cruz dropped out and Hillary still irritated by Sanders for a while yet. Was surprised Cruz dropped out but he probably calculated he has no viable path left now and not prolonging the divisions in the GOP gives him the moral high ground and sets him as nominee for 2020 if Trump loses the general
If the Dems win, GOP elite will spend the next four years making sure it definitely isn't Cruz I suspect.
I find the desperation of #NeverTrumpers bigging up a range of increasingly desperate candidates rather touching. When supposed liberals are talking up Cruz in preference to Trump, I can only presume they've no idea what he stands for.
Never Trump's are conservative Republicans, I would say mostly evangelical Cruz supporters. While I would never normally recommend going there RedState is a decent place to visit to get some insight on them.
What on earth does Kasich think he is doing? How can he ask the party to waste time and money when he would not get close to Trump if he won every remaining delegate? He really should have given up a while ago.
Meanwhile Hillary staggers on, inevitable but weak. Sanders is damaging her and the Democratic party. Her inability to put him away should make those who think she is somehow going to crush Trump pause. This is not a strong candidate.
My guess is that he's planning to run again in 2020 and wants to be in a position to say 'I told you so'. He does poll considerably better than Trump when pitted in head-to-heads against Hillary.
Aged 67? Seems a bit unlikely, even given the geriatric nature of this year's candidates. I don't think Nikki Haley will be kept awake at night by the thought of facing him four years on.
More likely he has decided, unlike the younger Cruz, that it really is now or never and he might as well carry on in case Trump is eaten by a shark or something. Or he may be angling for Veep and has concluded the convention might make him impossible to ignore.
Surely Trump's veep has to be a woman? To counter all the negatives surrounding his attitudes to women.
Finding a running mate who'll do the gig may not be that easy. At best, it's a position that might act as a boost to a 2020 campaign if Trump loses or 2024 if he wins, but the running mate will have to tie themself to a loose cannon in the meantime.
So it's going to appeal to a candidate a little further down the batting order that normally would not expect to be in the running, but is going to gamble on Trump doing better than expected to jump them up the queue to the big time.
A salutary lesson once again for those people who believe what a candidate or Party will say during an election as distinct from what they say and do after the election. Ted Cruz was going to fight all the way to the GOP Convention - expect that he hasn't.
Campaigning rhetoric is just that - it's there to intimidate your opponents and bolster your supporters but strip all that away and for most politicians the endgame is to make the best of the result, favourable or otherwise so generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day - but not until the votes are cast.
Of more immediate relevance, tomorrow's London Mayoral election and recent events haven't so far had an impact. I've yet to see Goldsmith or any Conservative in East Ham and if he has to spend his time holding up the vote in the Outer Suburbs he's already lost.
And yet only 61% of those surveyed were voting for Zac or Sadiq according to the poll yesterday (which the Standard buried in a corner as it was so poor for their "boy"). While I expect that figure to be higher, it's still curious that at least a third of Londoners won't be supporting either Zac or Sadiq (I'm one of them). Yet we are to believe none of the other candidates has 4% which simply doesn't add up.
A 9-point first preference lead widens to a 14-point lead on seconds which is about what you'd expect. The GLA numbers will be interesting - Labour had a very good election in 2012 gaining four members. On the constituency side, the Conservatives should pick up Barnet & Camden but may struggle to hold Havering & Redbridge but unless UKIP plays a much bigger role, I don't expect much other change in terms of seats.
In 2012 Labour and the Conservatives won 21 of the 25 seats between them - for me, the question is whether the 39% non-Sadiq non-Zac first vote translates into equivalent support for minor parties on the GLA lists. I suspect it won't be as large as that but may be enough for say 2 Greens, 2 UKIP and 2 LDs with the Labour-Conservative split 10-9 or perhaps 11-8 if Khan has done very well. If the two main parties are still polling over 80% on first preference, then the minor parties will be squeezed accordingly.
The poll was the full response - it included 7% won't vote and 19% did not know.
Picking up on one phrase, from what the BBC showed a couple of weeks ago " generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day” didn’t apply to the Republicans with regard to Obama. Except, on occasion, civility!
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
Great a poll from a NeverTrump lobbyist outfit that is well out of line of the other Florida polls that have Trump winning. Trump also leads Cubans in Florida 37 to 31.
I see even the most diehard PBTories have given up on trying to make the Sadiq Khan "Uncle Tom" thing happen.
You have to fear for London if that chap gets in - suspect Londoners will look back on the Boris years with fondness in the future. Still the journalists will have a rich seam of material to mine for the next 4 years uncovering the gravy train.
For the first time ever I am not voting Con tomorrow - Cam and GO can whistle for my vote.
A salutary lesson once again for those people who believe what a candidate or Party will say during an election as distinct from what they say and do after the election. Ted Cruz was going to fight all the way to the GOP Convention - expect that he hasn't.
Campaigning rhetoric is just that - it's there to intimidate your opponents and bolster your supporters but strip all that away and for most politicians the endgame is to make the best of the result, favourable or otherwise so generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day - but not until the votes are cast.
Of more immediate relevance, tomorrow's London Mayoral election and recent events haven't so far had an impact. I've yet to see Goldsmith or any Conservative in East Ham and if he has to spend his time holding up the vote in the Outer Suburbs he's already lost.
And yet only 61% of those surveyed were voting for Zac or Sadiq according to the poll yesterday (which the Standard buried in a corner as it was so poor for their "boy"). While I expect that figure to be higher, it's still curious that at least a third of Londoners won't be supporting either Zac or Sadiq (I'm one of them). Yet we are to believe none of the other candidates has 4% which simply doesn't add up.
A 9-point first preference lead widens to a 14-point lead on seconds which is about what you'd expect. The GLA numbers will be interesting - Labour had a very good election in 2012 gaining four members. On the constituency side, the Conservatives should pick up Barnet & Camden but may struggle to hold Havering & Redbridge but unless UKIP plays a much bigger role, I don't expect much other change in terms of seats.
In 2012 Labour and the Conservatives won 21 of the 25 seats between them - for me, the question is whether the 39% non-Sadiq non-Zac first vote translates into equivalent support for minor parties on the GLA lists. I suspect it won't be as large as that but may be enough for say 2 Greens, 2 UKIP and 2 LDs with the Labour-Conservative split 10-9 or perhaps 11-8 if Khan has done very well. If the two main parties are still polling over 80% on first preference, then the minor parties will be squeezed accordingly.
The poll was the full response - it included 7% won't vote and 19% did not know.
Mr. 565, aimed at me? [Been a while since I've been called a PBTory].
No, not aimed at you, it was at the people last night who were shrieking about how Khan was calling moderate Muslims "Uncle Toms", even though one look at the video would have shown people that it wasn't directed at moderate Muslims at all.
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
So this is gearing up to be the Maverick vs Establishment GE in yankeeland. FWIW I think Trump is a lot smarter than Hillary and has all the energy and positive 'mo'. I think he'll do it. Joe Blow is way beyond pissed off and 8 more years of Obama with a vagina ain't an attractive offer.
If he hadn't f*cked off the entire Hispanic community (which was trending sharply Republican until recently), as well as a sizeable number of white women (who voted heavily Republican in 2012), then I'd agree with you.
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
Not so Robert.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
There is some deeply lazy thinking amongst Republicans that Hispanics are 'natural Repiblicans'.
It turns out they aren't.
Quite so.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive .. ) the match-up numbers for Trump against Clinton are appalling
Pennsylvania +15 Arizona +7 Florida +13 North Carolina +12 New York +26
Where does the I side with data come from? Is it a Voodoo poll?
I can't be bothered to look into their methodology, and I don't put too much weight on their percentages, but they have been remarkably accurate on the Trump vs Cruz polling when assessing areas of strength. They had SW Missouri, I 44 corridor in NC etc. as strong areas for Cruz.
Comments
http://www.isidewith.com/map/JNty/2016-presidential-election-donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton#z4
CT and NJ are like NY, but without NY's demographics. Trump polls well in the Mid Atlantic and got 60% plus in the DE primary. NH has historically been a swing state, a lot of Scot Irish settled in the mountains in the north of the state. FL is nailed on, and along with NV is a home state for Trump. MI, OH and PA have always been the Rust Belt states likely to flip. Iowa is too Midwest nice but New Mexico might like a wall on the border.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPqHMcNUuP0
Doesn't necessarily fill one with confidence.
2015 4
2014 6
2012 3
2011 3
2010 5
2008 9
2007 8
2006 10
2004 9
2003 8
2002 7
1976 - Ford (63)
1980 - Reagan (69)
1984 - Reagan (73)
1988 - GHW Bush (64)
1992 - GHW Bush (68)
1996 - Dole (73)
2000 - GW Bush (54)
2004 - GW Bush (58)
2008 - McCain (72)
2012 - Romney (65)
2016 - Trump (70) - presumably
If he runs a professional campaign, picks a youngish female candidate as Veep and blitzes the rest of the primaries, I can see Trump beating Hillary handsomely.
So the only way is up, unless they field no candidates at all...
http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/results/2015/72/
That's an increase on the 10% lead that Labour's candidate Khan held over his Tory rival just a month ago.
In that time, Khan's support has gone up by 1% from 55% to 56%, while Goldsmith's has fallen from 45% to 44%.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/lbc-poll-sadiq-extends-lead-over-zac-to-12-points-129840
I assume that Trump - who IMO is best seen as an flexible egotist of no fixed opinions, rather like Boris (i.e. not a fascist or even especially right-wing), will now pivot and amaze us all by his reasonableness, except when talking about Hillary. His weakness will be shortness of temper and ample evidence of untrustworthiness when it comes to actually sticking to any policy. In the end I suspect people will think "not really a President".
Closer to home it seems that identity politics is far more important than policy. All I read on here is Goldsmith accusing Khan of being a terrorist and Khan saying Uncle Tom. Its pathetic. This place is a perfect example of people supporting an identity rather than the person themselves. I don't ever read about this govt's successes or failures just more and more posturing and massaging of messages.
Strangely enough for the time being it suits my personal situation, all the Jewish nonsense just serves to turn more people away from voting, which plays into Leave's hands.
We're arguably going to win by default but Remain will only have themselves to blame.
The clip shows Sadiq as being the politician he is, a sort of browner version of Blair. I'd assume the' Uncle Toms' phrase was a mis-speak - a shortened version of 'voters who agree with you no matter what.'
if he's now saying that "'Uncle Toms' is racist, he's guilty of hypocrisy. But about 95% of politicians are guilty of that. It does confirms my view that he's in the Blair/Cameron group of being unprincipled. Who knows what he'll be like as Mayor?
But it's only Londoners anyway (smiley face thingy).
Thanks to Pong also. MSE is always worth reading.
Yes 41% 45% 43% 44%
No 49% 51% 46% 49%
DK 10% 5% 11% 6%
Since the referendum eight polls have shown Yes ahead (considerably more than between 2000-2014) with two exact ties.
"Are there really Labour politicians hoping for an early general election that could see them lose again? They'd probably describe themselves as pragmatists looking at the prospects for their party, but in short, yes there are."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36195495
They must be ones in very safe seats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000
We have different views of this. I think Trump will struggle anywhere with a large Hispanic population. I certainly don't see FL as nailed on for him. And his negatives with women will hurt him everywhere.
I think it's improbable (but not outright impossible) that he gets to 270 EVs. I think the current Betfair odds are about right.
A salutary lesson once again for those people who believe what a candidate or Party will say during an election as distinct from what they say and do after the election. Ted Cruz was going to fight all the way to the GOP Convention - expect that he hasn't.
Campaigning rhetoric is just that - it's there to intimidate your opponents and bolster your supporters but strip all that away and for most politicians the endgame is to make the best of the result, favourable or otherwise so generosity, compromise and civility become the order of the day - but not until the votes are cast.
Of more immediate relevance, tomorrow's London Mayoral election and recent events haven't so far had an impact. I've yet to see Goldsmith or any Conservative in East Ham and if he has to spend his time holding up the vote in the Outer Suburbs he's already lost.
And yet only 61% of those surveyed were voting for Zac or Sadiq according to the poll yesterday (which the Standard buried in a corner as it was so poor for their "boy"). While I expect that figure to be higher, it's still curious that at least a third of Londoners won't be supporting either Zac or Sadiq (I'm one of them). Yet we are to believe none of the other candidates has 4% which simply doesn't add up.
A 9-point first preference lead widens to a 14-point lead on seconds which is about what you'd expect. The GLA numbers will be interesting - Labour had a very good election in 2012 gaining four members. On the constituency side, the Conservatives should pick up Barnet & Camden but may struggle to hold Havering & Redbridge but unless UKIP plays a much bigger role, I don't expect much other change in terms of seats.
In 2012 Labour and the Conservatives won 21 of the 25 seats between them - for me, the question is whether the 39% non-Sadiq non-Zac first vote translates into equivalent support for minor parties on the GLA lists. I suspect it won't be as large as that but may be enough for say 2 Greens, 2 UKIP and 2 LDs with the Labour-Conservative split 10-9 or perhaps 11-8 if Khan has done very well. If the two main parties are still polling over 80% on first preference, then the minor parties will be squeezed accordingly.
See some of yesterday's threads...
You have been warned !!
Hillary will be a lousy President, but Trump's tent simply isn't big enough.
White women went 56% for Romney.
This week has seen some people exposed in terms of what they think which has to be a good thing. I want freedom of speech but I want people to coherently justify their reasoning. The only person who knows if Livingstone hates Jews is himself, if he does then be honest and explain why.
Trump says he'd ban Muslims and explains why, Americans can vote along those lines. Nobody knows what our insipid politicians think.
The last GOP candidate that had any hispanic pull was Bush II and even that was bucking a trend that has been moving Dem way for more than two decades. It allowed Bush to edge Florida with Cuban hispanics but even that GOP sub demographic has melted away.
Note the AIF Florida poll on Monday - Truly awful for Trump and that from a Republican pollster !!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/AIF_April_2016.pdf
It turns out they aren't.
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/sites/ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/files/lm03_london_mayoral_poll_-_may_wave_0.pdf
I see even the most diehard PBTories have given up on trying to make the Sadiq Khan "Uncle Tom" thing happen.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article75064787.html
The Hispanic community has never been trending, it has always been Hispanic.
For the first time ever I am not voting Con tomorrow - Cam and GO can whistle for my vote.
Breathes a sigh of relief.
No Hedging is stressful but profitable
http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/lbc-itv-news-london-mayoral-poll-may-2016/
It was quite something -- even when I've disagreed with PBers before, I've never known so many to just take a Guido Fawkes or Daily Mail headline at face value without doing even the most basic of their own research first.
Further if you look at the most recent swing state polling (including what @LondonBob thinks competitive ..
Pennsylvania +15
Arizona +7
Florida +13
North Carolina +12
New York +26
Only Ohio +3 offers Trump any solace.
Another crass decision by no 10.