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.
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.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
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 Dem
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% .
So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana, it is largely Manhattan commuter belt (of course Pennsylvania has some big manufacturing areas around Pittsburgh but they are swamped by the big city of Philadelphia which is why it is likely to stay blue)
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
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.
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
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.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
I said Andy Burnham would have been the best bet of the runners against the Tories, which remains the case even if Labour members did not follow my advice! It remains to be seen what Benn does, though McDonnell is probably more likely. Mathematically though the numbers are clear, if Trump loses Arizona or NC winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania will not be enough, he will have to win another Obama state too!
Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.
And as Trump likes to say, he hasn't started on Hillary yet. It will get bloody and don't think Trump could have hoped to be placed any better at this point.
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.
Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut
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 po.
No it points to Trump doing worse than Romney is doing and when Romney only got 206 EC votes if Trump is havi!
He can afford to lose 1 or 2 as long as he wins the big 3: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.
Not necessarily at all, it is entirely possible Hillary could win Arizona, Utah and NC and Trump Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, Trump will likely do worse with Hispanics and Mormons than Romney, better with the white working class
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 Dem
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% .
So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana, it is largely Manhattan commuter belt (of course Pennsylvania has some big manufacturing areas around Pittsburgh but they are swamped by the big city of Philadelphia which is why it is likely to stay blue)
If Trump wins Pennsylvania then on the basis of state polls and the primary vote totals Connecticut maybe close. The profile and the history of that state agrees with that.
Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.
And as Trump likes to say, he hasn't started on Hillary yet. It will get bloody and don't think Trump could have hoped to be placed any better at this point.
You could just as easily say Hillary has yet to start on Trump and there are plenty of better starting points than 6% behind
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 Dem
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% .
So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana, it is largely Manhattan commuter belt (of course Pennsylvania has some big manufacturing areas around Pittsburgh but they are swamped by the big city of Philadelphia which is why it is likely to stay blue)
If Trump wins Pennsylvania then on the basis of state polls and the primary vote totals Connecticut maybe close. The profile and the history of that state agrees with that.
Why? Obama won Connecticut by 18% and Pennsylvania by 5%, if Trump won Pennsylvania by 1% Clinton would still win Connecticut by 12% on a uniform swing
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
If only Andy was running for POTUS
History would have PROVED that no Liverpuddlian has EVER lost a Presidential election.
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% .
So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana, it is largely Manhattan commuter belt (of course Pennsylvania has some big manufacturing areas around Pittsburgh but they are swamped by the big city of Philadelphia which is why it is likely to stay blue)
If Trump wins Pennsylvania then on the basis of state polls and the primary vote totals Connecticut maybe close. The profile and the history of that state agrees with that.
Why? Obama won Connecticut by 18% and Pennsylvania by 5%, if Trump won Pennsylvania by 1% Clinton would still win Connecticut by 12% on a uniform swing
Look at Long Island, and look at the polls.
Uniform swings are mostly out of the window when you have 2 new candidates.
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% .
So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana
If Trump wins Pennsylvania then on the basis of state polls and the primary vote totals Connecticut maybe close. The profile and the history of that state agrees with that.
Why? Obama won Connecticut by 18% and Pennsylvania by 5%, if Trump won Pennsylvania by 1% Clinton would still win Connecticut by 12% on a uniform swing
Look at Long Island, and look at the polls.
Uniform swings are mostly out of the window when you have 2 new candidates.
Not to that extent, Connecticut is not a swing state, Pennsylvania still is. Pennsylvania has a GOP Senator, a majority of its Congressmen are GOP as its legislature. It has a Democratic governor. Both Connecticut's Senators are Democrats by contrast, as are most of its Congressmen, its legislature and governor
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
If only Andy was running for POTUS
History would have PROVED that no Liverpuddlian has EVER lost a Presidential election.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
If only Andy was running for POTUS
Well Mayor of Manchester is almost the same
Andy wasn't selected for Labour party leader.
If he's not selected as Labour's mayoral candidate for Manchester what will he try for next?
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.
Yes they are. And no, they aren't.
The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.
But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.
So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.
The referendum debate seems to increasingly end up with an argument that you don't have to be in the EU single market to trade with EU countries. Who knew? Soon everyone will.
Given that Kasich and Cruz are no longer campaigning for the nomination, I'm not sure we should read too much into the West Virginia Republican primary.
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.
Most polls of SME opinion that I have seen show most respondents supporting the UK's membership of the EU. It is true, though, that very large numbers of SMEs do not export at all. However, those that do tend to export primarily to EU member states. I've yet to see a convincing argument for why making it harder to do this by leaving the single market is going to be helpful to them or their employees.
We're an SME. If the UK leaves the EU will focus more on Asia and the US. For the shareholders that's fine; for employees based in Asia and the US it will be fantastic; for those based in London it will be less so.
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.
Yes they are. And no, they aren't.
The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.
But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.
So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.
That's a really first class analysis, the kind we need on PB.
No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262 http://www.270towin.com/
Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?
If only Andy was running for POTUS
Yeah. An American Republican acquaintance who knows the British political scene said to me yesterday that he would vote for anyone in it, including Cameron, Boris, Corbyn and me, by preference to either candidate - "you guys don't realise how lucky you are". He's going to scrutinise the minor candidates and vote for the least nutty one.
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.
Yes they are. And no, they aren't.
The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.
But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.
So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.
Yep - Immigration and the fears of the damage it does and could do are Leave's huge advantage in this referendum. It could well prove decisive.
Given that Kasich and Cruz are no longer campaigning for the nomination, I'm not sure we should read too much into the West Virginia Republican primary.
It's not only the percentages that count. The number of votes for Trump count even more: 151,000 in WV and 119,500 from Nebraska, where the ever sly Cruz hoped for a re-launch of his presidential bid.
''So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.''
By 'authority' you mean people who think they know better what's best for Britain than the ordinary British voter.
''So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.''
By 'authority' you mean people who think they know better what's best for Britain than the ordinary British voter.
Yes. Or to give them their technical title: "politicians"...
"Argument from authority" is the use of authority figures to impart a message in the hope it will be believed without the listener checking the message. "Don't eat that funny plant!" "Why?" "Because I am a plant expert!" "Oh, OK". It's quick and it's effective. But it's not infinitely effective - if you don't believe the PMs from the whole Anglosphere and POTUS, you're hardly likely to believe the PM of Japan. And as you already know, it is a logical fallacy.
Please don't confuse explanation for advocacy. I was explaining why REMAIN used it and why it's becoming less effective (or even counterproductive). I wasn't recommending it as an approach.
Comments
Bravo. You've done very, very well in predicting the likely broad strategy.
The third point is the most resonant. Leave can win if they're hopeful and forward looking.
http://www.270towin.com/
Sanders 57
Hillary 38
Trump 86
Cruz 8
Kasich 4
Sanders 57% Clinton 38%
Trump 86%
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/wv/Dem
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/wv/Rep
Uniform swings are mostly out of the window when you have 2 new candidates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(financier)
17% of W.V. GOP voters are scared of Trump, 33% of them voted for him.
Unless something radical happens, Goodnight.
Andy wasn't selected for Labour party leader.
If he's not selected as Labour's mayoral candidate for Manchester what will he try for next?
It's the American dream.
Trump is living the dream.
More Miss American Pie than American Dream.
The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.
But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.
So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.
Trump getting 75%
Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36259271
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/05/10/budweiser-renames-cans-beer-america-anheuser-busch/84176886/
We're an SME. If the UK leaves the EU will focus more on Asia and the US. For the shareholders that's fine; for employees based in Asia and the US it will be fantastic; for those based in London it will be less so.
She already has image problems as a compromise and compromised candidate. She really doesn't need this. It is giving Trump a considerable advantage.
By 'authority' you mean people who think they know better what's best for Britain than the ordinary British voter.
"Argument from authority" is the use of authority figures to impart a message in the hope it will be believed without the listener checking the message. "Don't eat that funny plant!" "Why?" "Because I am a plant expert!" "Oh, OK". It's quick and it's effective. But it's not infinitely effective - if you don't believe the PMs from the whole Anglosphere and POTUS, you're hardly likely to believe the PM of Japan. And as you already know, it is a logical fallacy.
Please don't confuse explanation for advocacy. I was explaining why REMAIN used it and why it's becoming less effective (or even counterproductive). I wasn't recommending it as an approach.