Tonight, in about 2 hours, polls close in W.Virginia, where the early Exit Poll leaks suggest to me that Sanders has beaten Hillary with close to a 2-1 margin.
The only interesting issue is that 39% of Sanders voters in W.Virginia say that they will vote Trump in the GE over Hillary in the Exit Poll.
Her nickname will have to be updated to 'Crippled Hillary' by the time she crawls across the finish line
Only if she manages to lose all remaining contests and by a 70-30 margin will she lose the nomination. Right now she is still on course to win California (though that maybe tightening) and N.J., but her unpopularity is showing.
There is no question that if Sanders was 10-20 years younger and from a bigger state than Vermont that Hillary would have lost the nomination.
She's become thoroughly complacent after winning victories in demographically favorable areas. The Democrats will stick to their system of delegates though - Hillary actually won the popular vote in 2008...
I would not be surprised if Trump has his highest vote total in WV of any state in November, it is ideal territory for him, one of the poorest states in the union, filled with white working class voters and conservative Democrats, it has no major city and a below average percentage of college graduates
Tonight, in about 2 hours, polls close in W.Virginia, where the early Exit Poll leaks suggest to me that Sanders has beaten Hillary with close to a 2-1 margin.
The only interesting issue is that 39% of Sanders voters in W.Virginia say that they will vote Trump in the GE over Hillary in the Exit Poll.
Her nickname will have to be updated to 'Crippled Hillary' by the time she crawls across the finish line
Only if she manages to lose all remaining contests and by a 70-30 margin will she lose the nomination. Right now she is still on course to win California (though that maybe tightening) and N.J., but her unpopularity is showing.
There is no question that if Sanders was 10-20 years younger and from a bigger state than Vermont that Hillary would have lost the nomination.
She's become thoroughly complacent after winning victories in demographically favorable areas. The Democrats will stick to their system of delegates though - Hillary actually won the popular vote in 2008...
Bernie's progress with the African-American demographic that people thought were wedded to Clinton could prove to be an icebreaker for Trump to move in and carry more of the vote than expected.
Not many are interested but the Democratic primary race hasn't yet finished de jure.
Tonight, in about 2 hours, polls close in W.Virginia, where the early Exit Poll leaks suggest to me that Sanders has beaten Hillary with close to a 2-1 margin.
The only interesting issue is that 39% of Sanders voters in W.Virginia say that they will vote Trump in the GE over Hillary in the Exit Poll.
In WV hardly surprising, Trump will win it by a landslide
Indeed W.Virginia is safe Trump country, if Trump replicates the 39% of Sanders voters that want to vote for him over Hillary in the GE in the swing states then he's won.
But I doubt it, because W.V. is a special economic case, however the interiors of Pennsylvania are similar.
Anyway looking at the primary vote results, I find that despite Trump losing Ohio by a margin to Kasich he still beat Hillary in the raw vote total, despite Hillary winning Ohio.
In Pennsylvania and Florida there where almost even.
In Texas Hillary beat Trump, but Trump almost tied her in Vermont so that is probably the home state effect of Cruz and Sanders screwing the result.
How stupid are the mainstream media, that they don't know they are being played by Cameron. He knows what he was doing by distracting from IDS' speech on immigration and workers rights. Oh well I guess we'll have to wait untill we get a PM who actually cares about his country before we're free from the European superstate.
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
It is a wonderful sight to see such confidence, from people not even considering the scintilla of a faint possibility that these voices might be right.
How stupid are the mainstream media, that they don't know they are being played by Cameron. He knows what he was doing by distracting from IDS' speech on immigration and workers rights. Oh well I guess we'll have to wait untill we get a PM who actually cares about his country before we're free from the European superstate.
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
Well Trump is running by himself essentially, I don't know what the effects of that will be. The only question is will the corpse of Ted Cruz get more than 30% in Nebraska with postal votes.
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
Needle stuck Richard?
Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
Needle stuck Richard?
Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?
No, I'm simply stating things as I see them. Which is all I ever do. I'm genuinely amazed at the intellectual arrogance of the Leavers, that they can dismiss all these voices completely without any doubts.
I probably shouldn't be - it's lack of confidence manifesting itself as over-confidence, isn't it?
How stupid are the mainstream media, that they don't know they are being played by Cameron. He knows what he was doing by distracting from IDS' speech on immigration and workers rights. Oh well I guess we'll have to wait untill we get a PM who actually cares about his country before we're free from the European superstate.
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
Needle stuck Richard?
Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?
Question is, will Richard still spin for CCHQ when a Eurosceptic leads the party?
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
Numbers like that in a place surrounded by swing states are just horrific for Clinton.
Romney won 62% in West Virginia in 2012 in a state with a plurality of registered Democrats, at the presidential level many Democrats in the state vote GOP
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.
Well the only thing is : BoJo is campaigning vigorously and Obama isn't. Cameron still thinks he'd god's gift to Merkel and he's going to be on TV so much because he is PM.
Leave are doing very well by keeping Farage off the screens - although IMHO a lot of his negativity was engineered by the TV organisations. Will expect him to do well when he is allowed to argue the case, rather than having 10 second soundbites on TV.
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Don't forget the Royal College of Midwives. Very important.
Well the only thing is : BoJo is campaigning vigorously and Obama isn't. Cameron still thinks he'd god's gift to Merkel and he's going to be on TV so much because he is PM.
Leave are doing very well by keeping Farage off the screens - although IMHO a lot of his negativity was engineered by the TV organisations. Will expect him to do well when he is allowed to argue the case, rather than having 10 second soundbites on TV.
Think he is more likely to be arguing with Hamilton then putting a case. The open war fare in UKIP must see a radical change in the party post 23rd June for it to survive
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.
I wasn't wondering whether they are working. I was expressing amazement that formerly sensible people are so certain they are wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be right?
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Don't forget the Royal College of Midwives. Very important.
I note that Daves comments on how corrupt Nigeria and Afghanistan are is being treated as a gaffe. Surely it is just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
I note that Daves comments on how corrupt Nigeria and Afghanistan are is being treated as a gaffe. Surely it is just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
I note that Daves comments on how corrupt Nigeria and Afghanistan are is being treated as a gaffe. Surely it is just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
I don't know why that is news. Nigeria and Afghanistan are corrupt, big deal.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
I know I'm late to the party, but those figures suggest that the annoyance that I feel with Cameron at the moment is widespread.
And that he is now a total liability for the Tory party.
Time to move on sir. Thank you for your service. Shame you had to split the party before you left.
Not really. They show that Leavers don't agree with him on the EU (well, that's a surprise),. and that many Remainers aren't Tories (well, there's another surprise).
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.
I wasn't wondering whether they are working. I was expressing amazement that formerly sensible people are so certain they are wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be right?
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
Cameron can't be trusted. A characteristically vulgar PR stunt from him. Her Majesty has to be on her guard when she's obliged to receive the creep.
If it's true, I'm seriously unimpressed. The Queen should never be used like this - ever.
That spin doctor on Sky thinks it's so very clever, I doubt many would agree.
ugh what a grotty conman he is
It's becoming a bit of a pattern. Incredibly disappointing.
You obviously have no time for David Cameron and therefore who would you have as leader and Prime Minister post 23rd June. Genuine question
We need a sensible handover. So, I'd be okay with new leader in new year. In a choice now, May. But a contest may throw up a surprise entry
The simple fact is that David Cameron is the one to lead the party for quite a while to allow successors to come through and May could be one but there are several younger ones who need time to develop. Post 23rd June the Government needs to start governing and move on, no matter the result. I know you are very committed to leave, indeed much more than I am to remain, but after I hope reconciliation is the order of the day.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
If I was going to go for two very long shot states against the grain, I'd go Utah and New Jersey.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Can't believe that the rabid wing of the PeeBee Tory Club seem to think that Cameron is a loser and liability. He won an election for you lot against all the odds. All other potential leaders would have most probably lost and we would be in the early stages of another long period of Labour government.
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
Can't believe that the rabid wing of the PeeBee Tory Club seem to think that Cameron is a loser and liability. He won an election for you lot against all the odds. All other potential leaders would have most probably lost and we would be in the early stages of another long period of Labour government.
"Another"? Other than Blair (whose name is now an insult in Labour) ... when was the last long period of Labour government?
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
EDIT: That fact wouldn't change even if I was turning 40 this year!
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
It turned Democrat because Clinton won by 5% in 1992 while Bush won by 8% in 1988. Connecticut is also absolutely not the rust belt by any definition of the word, it is in New England and one of the wealthiest states in the USA and commuter belt for Manhattan bankers and corporate lawyers!
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Actually it says a lot. Like the Miami-Dade poll yesterday pointed that Trump is actually quite close to Hillary in Florida, the PPP N.Carolina poll points to Trump being about where Romney was in the swing states.
But this is what the actual conversation about the US Presidential race should be, it's about states not national vote numbers.
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.
I wasn't wondering whether they are working. I was expressing amazement that formerly sensible people are so certain they are wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be right?
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
Can't believe that the rabid wing of the PeeBee Tory Club seem to think that Cameron is a loser and liability. He won an election for you lot against all the odds. All other potential leaders would have most probably lost and we would be in the early stages of another long period of Labour government.
Lefty man-love for the Bullingdon Posh-Boy? Surely not!!
Can't believe that the rabid wing of the PeeBee Tory Club seem to think that Cameron is a loser and liability. He won an election for you lot against all the odds. All other potential leaders would have most probably lost and we would be in the early stages of another long period of Labour government.
"Another"? Other than Blair (whose name is now an insult in Labour) ... when was the last long period of Labour government?
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
EDIT: That fact wouldn't change even if I was turning 40 this year!
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
But in the last 25 years, not only is Cameron the only Tory to win an election, he is the only Tory leader to even get more than 200 SEATS (a benchmark even Labour's biggest stinkers have always cleared).
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Actually it says a lot. Like the Miami-Dade poll yesterday pointed that Trump is actually quite close to Hillary in Florida, the PPP N.Carolina poll points to Trump being about where Romney was in the swing states.
But this is what the actual conversation about the US Presidential race should be, it's about states not national vote numbers.
No it points to Trump doing worse than Romney is doing and when Romney only got 206 EC votes if Trump is having to defend any of them he has next to no chance, if he loses a N Carolina or an Arizona it does not matter if he wins Ohio and Pennsylvania by a landslide, Hillary wins the presidency!
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Sometimes you need to take a step back to get some perspective.
A year ago the received wisdom was that Trump's candidacy was a joke and he'd now be preparing for the new season of The Apprentice. Now he's got the nomination sewn up and is already polling on par with the previous standard bearer before the head-to-head campaign seriously gets going. That's almost unbelievable and there's more to come.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
It turned Democrat because Clinton won by 5% in 1992 while Bush won by 8% in 1988. Connecticut is also absolutely not the rust belt by any definition of the word, it is in New England and one of the wealthiest states in the USA and commuter belt for Manhattan bankers and corporate lawyers!
We are talking about 1992 here, New England had a big manufacturing industry before NAFTA as you can see from the commentary of election night:
Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.
Needle stuck Richard?
Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?
No, I'm simply stating things as I see them. Which is all I ever do. I'm genuinely amazed at the intellectual arrogance of the Leavers, that they can dismiss all these voices completely without any doubts.
I probably shouldn't be - it's lack of confidence manifesting itself as over-confidence, isn't it?
Nope. What all those voices have in common is that they benefit from the existence of supranational entities like the EU. But as soon as you start to look at anyone below their elitist ranks you see that the supposed benefits and the support drop off dramatically. This is why organisations like the CBI which are dominated by large multinationals are strongly in favour whilst as you move down into SME territory - which actually represents vastly more companies - support drops considerably.
The elite have much to lose from the UK withdrawing from the EU. Normal people equally have much to gain.
The arrogance is all on the side of the Remain elite.
By the way looking at the Exit Poll from W.Virginia:
44% of Sanders voters say they will vote for Trump over Hillary. 9% of Hillary voters say they will vote for Trump over Hillary. 33% of Democrats say they will vote for Trump over Hillary.
That tells me that it's 70-30 for Sanders in the W.Virginia Exit Poll.
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
But in the last 25 years, not only is Cameron the only Tory to win an election, he is the only Tory leader to even get more than 200 SEATS (a benchmark even Labour's biggest stinkers have always cleared).
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
But in the last 25 years, not only is Cameron the only Tory to win an election, he is the only Tory leader to even get more than 200 SEATS (a benchmark even Labour's biggest stinkers have always cleared).
I've long been of the opinion that Blair was the smoothest operator in post-war British politics.
His ability to hold together such a coalition of WWC, minorities, MC, Scottish, Welsh and especially Southern English voters for the Labour party will likely never be repeated.
Whilst Cameron has done well, he has not united any form of popular electorial coalition behind the Conservative party. His targeters won a few tens of thousand seats more in exactly the right places last year. Impressive, but not Blair, Major or Thatcher in 87 impressive.
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
It turned Democrat because Clinton won by 5% in 1992 while Bush won by 8% in 1988. Connecticut is also absolutely not the rust belt by any definition of the word, it is in New England and one of the wealthiest states in the USA and commuter belt for Manhattan bankers and corporate lawyers!
We are talking about 1992 here, New England had a big manufacturing industry before NAFTA as you can see from the commentary of election night:
Even if it had a manufacturing industry in 1992, Finance now makes up the largest share of Connecticut's economy at 16.9%, followed by real estate at 15%, manufacturing now just represents 11.9% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut#Economy
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Actually it says a lot. Like the Miami-Dade poll yesterday pointed that Trump is actually quite close to Hillary in Florida, the PPP N.Carolina poll points to Trump being about where Romney was in the swing states.
But this is what the actual conversation about the US Presidential race should be, it's about states not national vote numbers.
No it points to Trump doing worse than Romney is doing and when Romney only got 206 EC votes if Trump is having to defend any of them he has next to no chance, if he loses a N Carolina or an Arizona it does not matter if he wins Ohio and Pennsylvania by a landslide, Hillary wins the presidency!
He can afford to lose 1 or 2 as long as he wins the big 3: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions. And that those interests may not coincide with theirs.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Leave has Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marine Le Pen, Ian Botham, Roger Daltrey, Patrick Minford, Nigel Lawson, Norman Lamont, Joan Collins, Liz Hurley, Geoffrey Boycott, John Caudwell, Crispin Odey, Stuart Wheeler, John Mills and Peter Stringfellow, how can it lose?
And yours truly!
Well of course you tower above them all Sunil, how could I forget!
How stupid are the mainstream media, that they don't know they are being played by Cameron. He knows what he was doing by distracting from IDS' speech on immigration and workers rights. Oh well I guess we'll have to wait untill we get a PM who actually cares about his country before we're free from the European superstate.
It should be Leave slamming down the dead cat to distract attention from them.
The article conveniently ignores the fact that straight after the German had spouted his garbage, the World at One then interviewed the FT journalist who had closely followed all the developments up to Cameron's surrender who said that IDS's account was accurate and that up to within 24 hours of the speech Cameron had still been pushing for migration limits.
There was a liar on the radio today. Unfortunately for you it is clear he was German not British.
Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.
Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump
Sometimes you need to take a step back to get some perspective.
A year ago the received wisdom was that Trump's candidacy was a joke and he'd now be preparing for the new season of The Apprentice. Now he's got the nomination sewn up and is already polling on par with the previous standard bearer before the head-to-head campaign seriously gets going. That's almost unbelievable and there's more to come.
He presently trails Hillary by 6%. He did well to win the nomination yes but historically after 8 years in opposition the GOP should be favourites to win the presidency, that would not have been the case for Romney facing an incumbent president up for re-election, if Trump loses that will be the first time the GOP have lost 3 presidential elections in a row since Wendell Wilkie was their candidate in 1940!! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...
As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia) http://www.270towin.com/
If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago. Also N.Carolina.
Connecticut will comfortably go Democrat as it always does (Obama won it by 18% in 2012 but Pennsylvania by just 5%) and Hillary led Trump in North Carolina 49% to 37% in the latest poll this week
It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.
For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump
Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
It turned Democrat because Clinton won by 5% in 1992 while Bush won by 8% in 1988. Connecticut is also absolutely not the rust belt by any definition of the word, it is in New England and one of the wealthiest states in the USA and commuter belt for Manhattan bankers and corporate lawyers!
We are talking about 1992 here, New England had a big manufacturing industry before NAFTA as you can see from the commentary of election night:
Even if it had a manufacturing industry in 1992, Finance now makes up the largest share of Connecticut's economy at 16.9%, followed by real estate at 15%, manufacturing now just represents 11.9% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut#Economy
You fell into my area now.
9.9% of workers in Connecticut work in manufacturing. 12.6% in Ohio. 9.8% in Pennsylvania.
Connecticut is not that different, I'm focusing on workers because GDP doesn't vote.
Indiana has the largest share in the USA with 16.8% . Hawaii has the lowest with 2.2% .
How stupid are the mainstream media, that they don't know they are being played by Cameron. He knows what he was doing by distracting from IDS' speech on immigration and workers rights. Oh well I guess we'll have to wait untill we get a PM who actually cares about his country before we're free from the European superstate.
Comments
But I doubt it, because W.V. is a special economic case, however the interiors of Pennsylvania are similar.
Anyway looking at the primary vote results, I find that despite Trump losing Ohio by a margin to Kasich he still beat Hillary in the raw vote total, despite Hillary winning Ohio.
In Pennsylvania and Florida there where almost even.
In Texas Hillary beat Trump, but Trump almost tied her in Vermont so that is probably the home state effect of Cruz and Sanders screwing the result.
https://twitter.com/CBSNLive/status/730152419452178432
It is a wonderful sight to see such confidence, from people not even considering the scintilla of a faint possibility that these voices might be right.
Be LEAVE!
The only question is will the corpse of Ted Cruz get more than 30% in Nebraska with postal votes.
Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51016.pdf
I probably shouldn't be - it's lack of confidence manifesting itself as over-confidence, isn't it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-iain-duncan-smith-accused-of-lying-over-german-veto-a7022521.html
It should be Leave slamming down the dead cat to distract attention from them.
http://www.270towin.com/
Also N.Carolina.
By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.
Leave are doing very well by keeping Farage off the screens - although IMHO a lot of his negativity was engineered by the TV organisations. Will expect him to do well when he is allowed to argue the case, rather than having 10 second soundbites on TV.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be right?
And that he is now a total liability for the Tory party.
Time to move on sir. Thank you for your service. Shame you had to split the party before you left.
Nigeria and Afghanistan are corrupt, big deal.
I am praying for Portes to be in the news more. He is the best spokesman for Leave that I've yet heard.
The power of democracy
The latest poll was 44-44 in N.Carolina.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf
Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are the best for a Republican since 1988, not enough for him to win a state there though.
Pennsylvania and Connecticut seem to be on the list of possible Trump wins (certainly more possible that others in the region) based on the primary vote numbers and the state polls.
(Your opinion - no disrespect! - might possibly not be as well-informed...)
Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.
https://1ttd918ylvt17775r1u6ng1adc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CivitasNCPollApril2016.pdf
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/730142820875554818
In fact I'm 34 this year and in my entire lifetime the only non-Tory to win a general election is Blair. There have been three Tory election winners in that time.
EDIT: That fact wouldn't change even if I was turning 40 this year!
Like the Miami-Dade poll yesterday pointed that Trump is actually quite close to Hillary in Florida, the PPP N.Carolina poll points to Trump being about where Romney was in the swing states.
But this is what the actual conversation about the US Presidential race should be, it's about states not national vote numbers.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6KwNnbBO1q4dDwC1r0rujdcNByLHpVI1O2WKpzNfV8/edit?usp=sharing
A year ago the received wisdom was that Trump's candidacy was a joke and he'd now be preparing for the new season of The Apprentice. Now he's got the nomination sewn up and is already polling on par with the previous standard bearer before the head-to-head campaign seriously gets going. That's almost unbelievable and there's more to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgCDcGEnSZE
The elite have much to lose from the UK withdrawing from the EU. Normal people equally have much to gain.
The arrogance is all on the side of the Remain elite.
44% of Sanders voters say they will vote for Trump over Hillary.
9% of Hillary voters say they will vote for Trump over Hillary.
33% of Democrats say they will vote for Trump over Hillary.
That tells me that it's 70-30 for Sanders in the W.Virginia Exit Poll.
His ability to hold together such a coalition of WWC, minorities, MC, Scottish, Welsh and especially Southern English voters for the Labour party will likely never be repeated.
Whilst Cameron has done well, he has not united any form of popular electorial coalition behind the Conservative party. His targeters won a few tens of thousand seats more in exactly the right places last year. Impressive, but not Blair, Major or Thatcher in 87 impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut#Economy
There was a liar on the radio today. Unfortunately for you it is clear he was German not British.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
9.9% of workers in Connecticut work in manufacturing.
12.6% in Ohio.
9.8% in Pennsylvania.
Connecticut is not that different, I'm focusing on workers because GDP doesn't vote.
Indiana has the largest share in the USA with 16.8% .
Hawaii has the lowest with 2.2% .