politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gary Johnson could be the WH2016 king-maker

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gary Johnson could be the WH2016 king-maker

US presidential elections are always two-horse races. No candidate from any party other than the Republicans or Democrats has won the White House in over 150 years (which is to say, not since the Republicans became a major force), and nor has any even come close.

Read the full story here

RobD

First!

Randomly stumbled across this article by misclicking on the main page...

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2005/03/31/labour-up-14-in-scotland

Oh how times change!

JennyFreeman

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

edmundintokyo

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Some of the other polls have seen Clinton's lead drop off a bit, but not the LA Times. They had a 1% lead at the height of the bounce.

RobD

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

MarqueeMark

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

Toms

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

edmundintokyo

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Alistair

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

What was their previous poll?

Alistair

Just looked, it's a daily tracker of the same 3000 people everyday.

edmundintokyo

Other thing about Hillary Clinton: She lacks the guts and audacity of a good presidential-level candidate. For example, why doesn't this poll have the option about giving money to the North American Man/Boy Love Association?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/764219041020055552

RobD

edmundintokyo said:

Other thing about Hillary Clinton: She lacks the guts and audacity of a good presidential-level candidate. For example, why doesn't this poll have the option about giving money to the North American Man/Boy Love Association?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/764219041020055552

I need my own poll.

Are PB Tories:

* Always Right
* Never Wrong
* Infallible

Kevin_McCandless

edmundintokyo said:

Other thing about Hillary Clinton: She lacks the guts and audacity of a good presidential-level candidate. For example, why doesn't this poll have the option about giving money to the North American Man/Boy Love Association?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/764219041020055552

The "Like" button needs to come back ASAP.

Toms

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Uninspiring? I don't know, but I like being left to do my own thing. That's one reason I like living in Bedford away from the madding tourist crowd.

Odious sense of entitlement? I can't say I even notice. Sounds like a good description of the ruling UK Etonian Tory crowd.

Security policy? She made a mistake: that was adjudged unwise, but not actionable.

Fundamentally she is a seasoned veteran. And not Tory-ish.

RobD

Toms said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Uninspiring? I don't know, but I like being left to do my own thing. That's one reason I like living in Bedford away from the madding tourist crowd.

Odious sense of entitlement? I can't say I even notice. Sounds like a good description of the ruling UK Etonian Tory crowd.

Security policy? She made a mistake: that was adjudged unwise, but not actionable.

Fundamentally she is a seasoned veteran. And not Tory-ish.

Considerably less Etonian these days....

logical_song

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Looking at the poll it seems that they've had Trump ahead most of the time, sometimes by a large margin. That's out of line with most polls.
Why anyone would want Trump to win eludes me, but you obviously do are are cherry picking to support your chosen outcome.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

RobD

logical_song said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Looking at the poll it seems that they've had Trump ahead most of the time, sometimes by a large margin. That's out of line with most polls.
Why anyone would want Trump to win eludes me, but you obviously do are are cherry picking to support your chosen outcome.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Much like leave supporters raving about polls good for them in the run up to the referendum? *innocent face*

foxinsoxuk

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

Without access to the maths of his model it is hard to say, but a strong Johnson performance is one way a Clinton win by 16% could happen.

AlastairMeeks

If Donald Trump loses support to the Libertarians, presumably some of Bernie Sanders' supporters will feel free to express support for the Greens. So the impact on the main event of defections to minor parties will be muted, though still presumably of overall benefit to Hillary Clinton.

Charles

I've said it before, but my family in California are solid GOP votes: they grew up in Nixon's Orange County.

They were very strong advocates and supporters of Jeb Bush.

This time they are voting for Johnson - if it wasn't for his policies on encouraging schizophrenia among the vulnerable young, they would probably be donating and publicly advocating for him as well.

not_on_fire

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

The sum of two normally distributed random variables is another normal distribution.

Sean_F

edmundintokyo said:

Other thing about Hillary Clinton: She lacks the guts and audacity of a good presidential-level candidate. For example, why doesn't this poll have the option about giving money to the North American Man/Boy Love Association?

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/764219041020055552

I've never worked out whether NAMBLA is a serious organisation or an elaborate joke.

RobD

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

The sum of two normally distributed random variables is another normal distribution.

Not if one they are normalised differently, surely?

Edit: apparently it is. Time for bed, I think!

not_on_fire

logical_song said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Looking at the poll it seems that they've had Trump ahead most of the time, sometimes by a large margin. That's out of line with most polls.
Why anyone would want Trump to win eludes me, but you obviously do are are cherry picking to support your chosen outcome.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Is Jenny Freeman this year's chris_g00 (the infamous Romney Ramper)?

JackW

Trump preparing his excuses. He'll only lose Pennsylvania if "they cheat".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-pennsylvania-hillary-clinton-226978

Innocent_Abroad

Charles said:

I've said it before, but my family in California are solid GOP votes: they grew up in Nixon's Orange County.

They were very strong advocates and supporters of Jeb Bush.

This time they are voting for Johnson - if it wasn't for his policies on encouraging schizophrenia among the vulnerable young, they would probably be donating and publicly advocating for him as well.

Everyone knows that alcohol never hurt anyone.

not_on_fire

RobD said:

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

The sum of two normally distributed random variables is another normal distribution.

Not if one they are normalised differently, surely?

Yes, mathematically if X ~ N(mu1,sigma1^2) and Y~N(mu2,sigma2^2) then (X+Y)/2~N((mu1+mu2)/2,(sigma1^2 + sigma2^2)/2).

However, that does assume X and Y are independent, which is probably not quite true.

JackW

My latest (not ARSE4US) POTUS projection - Clinton 359-179 :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WLv4k

not_on_fire

JackW said:

Trump preparing his excuses. He'll only lose Pennsylvania if "they cheat".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-pennsylvania-hillary-clinton-226978

It's the Brexit pens all over again.

RobD

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

RobD said:

JennyFreeman said:

Clinton's lead down to 1%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/

It's always good to wait a bit after the conventions before rushing to judgement. I still think Trump will win, providing he doesn't say anything too outlandish again.

Don't agree about the candidates. This is the best US election in decades.

Don't worry.. Nate's already theorising what would happen if Clinton wins by sixteen points... titters

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/

Hmmmm.... And a few weeks before the Referendum, Mathew Parris was writing articles about how after a big Remain win, Prime Minister David Cameron would be able to purge all the Leavers.

I'm waiting on the debates before President Hillary Clinton is in the White House.

It is quite a useful site for the state betting that Shadsy has up. There looks to be some value in those to me. Missisippi goes Clinton for example. It is right to look at both ends of the error curve, particularly if Johnson starts to pick up Republicans. As Nate says:

"The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she’s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens."

I wonder why they are treating the uncertainty as symmetrical. Yes, each poll may have an error with a roughly normal distribution, but combining different polls each weighted differently would surely lead to an asymmetric distribution. I find it hard to believe Clinton is equally likely to win by 16 point as she is to tie.

The sum of two normally distributed random variables is another normal distribution.

Not if one they are normalised differently, surely?

Yes, mathematically if X ~ N(mu1,sigma1^2) and Y~N(mu2,sigma2^2) then (X+Y)/2~N((mu1+mu2)/2,(sigma1^2 + sigma2^2)/2).

However, that does assume X and Y are independent, which is probably not quite true.

Hm, I am talking about the PDFs. I think it's possible to make an asymmetric PDF from a sum of normal PDFs which are weighted differently.

And I should clarify that I mean asymmetric about the 50th percentile, where your error is a 16-84% range.

Charles

Innocent_Abroad said:

Charles said:

I've said it before, but my family in California are solid GOP votes: they grew up in Nixon's Orange County.

They were very strong advocates and supporters of Jeb Bush.

This time they are voting for Johnson - if it wasn't for his policies on encouraging schizophrenia among the vulnerable young, they would probably be donating and publicly advocating for him as well.

Everyone knows that alcohol never hurt anyone.

I doubt that alcohol would be legalised today if it were not firmly embedded into our culture).

But two wrongs don't make a right.

not_on_fire

JackW said:

My latest (not ARSE4US) POTUS projection - Clinton 359-179 :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WLv4k

Arizona but no Georgia for Clinton? I would have thought she would carry either both, or neither.

Innocent_Abroad

not_on_fire said:

JackW said:

Trump preparing his excuses. He'll only lose Pennsylvania if "they cheat".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-pennsylvania-hillary-clinton-226978

It's the Brexit pens all over again.

You mean he thinks he might lose any of the other 49 states fairly? That's not Trumpery...

Alistair

I see just like 2012 Johnson is spending all his money on 'consultants' who are close personal friend of his and not much on anything else.

Alistair

not_on_fire said:

JackW said:

My latest (not ARSE4US) POTUS projection - Clinton 359-179 :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WLv4k

Arizona but no Georgia for Clinton? I would have thought she would carry either both, or neither.

The demographics of each state are fairly different.

DecrepitJohnL

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

RobD

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Did any of those private email servers have top secret information on them?

JackW

not_on_fire said:

JackW said:

My latest (not ARSE4US) POTUS projection - Clinton 359-179 :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WLv4k

Arizona but no Georgia for Clinton? I would have thought she would carry either both, or neither.

Arizona and Georgia are TCTC but the nowcast edges one into each column - just.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

The British heptathletes are first and fourth. May get two on the podium

foxinsoxuk

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

not_on_fire

JackW said:

not_on_fire said:

JackW said:

My latest (not ARSE4US) POTUS projection - Clinton 359-179 :

http://www.270towin.com/maps/WLv4k

Arizona but no Georgia for Clinton? I would have thought she would carry either both, or neither.

Arizona and Georgia are TCTC but the nowcast edges one into each column - just.

Thanks. Will you be doing your safe Trump, leans Trump etc. breakdown of the states with your ARSE predictions?

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

Not sure that one excuses the other, and I imagine things have changed somewhat since Manning's data leak!

JackW

Nate Silver's latest forecasts :

Clinton 87.5 .. Trump 12.5 - Polls Only
Clinton 77.0 .. Trump 23.0 - Polls Plus
Clinton 89.0 .. Trump 10.9 - Nowcast

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

Charles

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

Not sure that one excuses the other, and I imagine things have changed somewhat since Manning's data leak!

Has anyone found evidence of US interests being compromised by Clinton's emails? Manning's certainly did. As did Ed Snowden's in 2013, which significantly impacted on British agents too.

The US military and intelligence apparatus has a beam in its eye while picking at the mote in Hillary's eye.

JackW

not_on_fire said:

Thanks. Will you be doing your safe Trump, leans Trump etc. breakdown of the states with your ARSE predictions?

Mrs JackW hasn't signed off on ARSE4US .... yet. I ever hopeful ....

If ARSE4US gets a fair wind the forecast will include a no toss up state map with a projection for the EC, swing state shares and as in 08/12 TCTC less than 5%, LEAN 5-10 and SAFE 10+.

rkrkrk

AlastairMeeks said:

If Donald Trump loses support to the Libertarians, presumably some of Bernie Sanders' supporters will feel free to express support for the Greens. So the impact on the main event of defections to minor parties will be muted, though still presumably of overall benefit to Hillary Clinton.

I think there's value in betting Hilary Clinton to get under 50% of the vote
(I'm personally targeting 45-50%).

It covers you in case the unthinkable happens and she loses... but it's also where she has been consistently polling...

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

Not sure that one excuses the other, and I imagine things have changed somewhat since Manning's data leak!

Has anyone found evidence of US interests being compromised by Clinton's emails? Manning's certainly did. As did Ed Snowden's in 2013, which significantly impacted on British agents too.

The US military and intelligence apparatus has a beam in its eye while picking at the mote in Hillary's eye.

The double standards with her hounding of Petraeus are impressive though

foxinsoxuk

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

That leaves a rather short supply of potential candidates. There is a desperate shortage of saints in public life.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

Not sure that one excuses the other, and I imagine things have changed somewhat since Manning's data leak!

Has anyone found evidence of US interests being compromised by Clinton's emails? Manning's certainly did. As did Ed Snowden's in 2013, which significantly impacted on British agents too.

The US military and intelligence apparatus has a beam in its eye while picking at the mote in Hillary's eye.

No, but that is not an excuse for ignoring procedures put in place for a reason. She got lucky in that regard (unless the Russians do actually have something), one wrong setting by whoever set it up could have left the whole thing wide open. Not saying the government itself is infallible in these regards, but they typically have stringent procedures in place designed to prevent information like this getting into the wrong hands.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

That leaves a rather short supply of potential candidates. There is a desperate shortage of saints in public life.

Corbyn, at least in terms of financial integrity......!

RobD

Charles, moderated? Whatever next!

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

That leaves a rather short supply of potential candidates. There is a desperate shortage of saints in public life.

Corbyn, at least in terms of financial integrity......!

Didn't he not properly declare rental income?

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

That leaves a rather short supply of potential candidates. There is a desperate shortage of saints in public life.

Corbyn, at least in terms of financial integrity......!

Didn't he not properly declare rental income?

Eh, what's a couple of hundred quid from a lodger?

JackW

RobD said:

Charles, moderated? Whatever next!

The writing has been on the wall since Charles moved to the degradation of the outer NW postcodes. A sad and inevitable decline has ensued.

foxinsoxuk

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Hillary Clinton is not very good at what we might call the tradecraft of politics, but private email servers excited very few on pb when it was Conservative cabinet ministers running them. Of course, here again Clinton is lucky in her opponent. Those Americans most exercised by the email scandal are ex-military types who did used to handle classified information. But in unforced error number 394, Trump has upset these voters by seeming to undermine Nato and even worse (number 395) by taking that ex-soldier's medal instead of politely declining it with a short speech about bravery and sacrifice.

Hillary was certainly a bit casual with email security, but the really catastrophic data leakage came from Bradley Manning while a serving soldier. Military people concerned with data security should lock their own doors first.

Not sure that one excuses the other, and I imagine things have changed somewhat since Manning's data leak!

Has anyone found evidence of US interests being compromised by Clinton's emails? Manning's certainly did. As did Ed Snowden's in 2013, which significantly impacted on British agents too.

The US military and intelligence apparatus has a beam in its eye while picking at the mote in Hillary's eye.

No, but that is not an excuse for ignoring procedures put in place for a reason. She got lucky in that regard (unless the Russians do actually have something), one wrong setting by whoever set it up could have left the whole thing wide open. Not saying the government itself is infallible in these regards, but they typically have stringent procedures in place designed to prevent information like this getting into the wrong hands.

The fact that nothing seems to have come out and that the case got abandoned seems to indicate that there is nothing to see.

No one can be in front line politics for decades without picking up some patina.

MaxPB

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

The British heptathletes are first and fourth. May get two on the podium

Hopefully in the individual sprint as well we get both our boys into the final!

Morris_Dancer

Incidentally, Futurama fans who weren't on yesterday evening may wish to avail themselves of Twitter, where Billy West (voice of Zapp Brannigan) has been recording Trump quotes in Zapp's voice. I RTed a couple of the best [@MorrisF1].

Edited extra bit: ahem. Easier just to put one up.

https://twitter.com/TheBillyWest/status/764217625404514304

Jonathan

If Nate Silver were British, they'd have to call him Nate Gold.

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

The fact that nothing seems to have come out and that the case got abandoned seems to indicate that there is nothing to see.

No one can be in front line politics for decades without picking up some patina.

I thought it was accepted there were top secret files on the server? Whether or not someone else got access to it is besides the point.

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

That leaves a rather short supply of potential candidates. There is a desperate shortage of saints in public life.

Not asking for a saint. Politics always involves compromises.

But this article - while saying that Trump's narrow claim is unproven - highlights the issue well. It's a disgraceful conflict of interest.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/

Morris_Dancer

Mr. D, that was my understanding.

If I were American, I'd likely vote Clinton but it would be with sod all enthusiasm, and hoping the Republicans picked someone even vaguely electable in four years.

RobD

Jonathan said:

If Nate Silver were British, they'd have to call him Nate Gold.

Fools Gold, perhaps

RobD

JackW said:

RobD said:

Charles, moderated? Whatever next!

The writing has been on the wall since Charles moved to the degradation of the outer NW postcodes. A sad and inevitable decline has ensued.

The horror!

JackW

Jonathan said:

If Nate Silver were British, they'd have to call him Nate Gold.

Arf ..

Or a Russian - Nate Dope

kle4

Toms said:

edmundintokyo said:

Toms said:

"More realistically, his support – and that going to Stein – is a protest against the dreadful quality offered up by the Republicans and the Democrats...:

Can someone please tell me what's dreadful about Hillary (apart from the fact that she's not Tory friendly) ?

Plodding, uninspiring speaker, odious sense of entitlement, disobeyed the information security policy.

In normal times that third one would justify disqualification from public office, and also a lifetime ban on using electronic devices. But Trump is the opponent, so these aren't normal times.

Uninspiring? I don't know, but I like being left to do my own thing. That's one reason I like living in Bedford away from the madding tourist crowd.

Odious sense of entitlement? I can't say I even notice. Sounds like a good description of the ruling UK Etonian Tory crowd.

Security policy? She made a mistake: that was adjudged unwise, but not actionable.

Fundamentally she is a seasoned veteran. And not Tory-ish.

Her not being Tory ish has nothing to do with her not being a good candidate, and I note you tie it back to Tories twice despite not being relevant ehich says something, Plenty of lefties in the us and here have found her deeply flawed. She just happens to be superior to trump because she is indeed experienced and will probably do an ok job. I'm not a sanders guy, or his rabid fans, but those fans were so rabid in part due to her flaws, and it wasn't because they disliked her for not being Tory like, they would reference the same issues you dismiss apart from maybe the emails.

Though I think you dismiss the email stuff a little flippantly as her making a mistake. Ok, they've decided her actions were not actionable about that, but she was well aware, given her experience, of how to treat potentially sensitive information and she either asked for or allowed her people to work around sensible rules on security simply because she found it more convenient. At best it is terribly careless. I'm not saying it rules her out as someone I'd vote for, but if not careless it was very stupid, classing it as making a mistake makes it seem like she sent an email to the wrong person, not deliberately ignored policy because why should she have to follow rules.

If you woukd justifiably be fired for it, I don't think it should be ignored even if it isn't criminal and trump is worse. Gove I recall used home email to discuss government business to try to get around freedom of information, and even if that was not criminal it was wrong too.

619

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

PlatoSaid

My word - what the Hell is going on in Rio? Just watching the evening track events and the stadium can't be more than 25% full.

The cameras are zooming right in trying to show spectators without acres of blue empty seats around them. Pitiful.

619

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. D, that was my understanding.

If I were American, I'd likely vote Clinton but it would be with sod all enthusiasm, and hoping the Republicans picked someone even vaguely electable in four years.

i suspect thats how most americans will vote. saying that, cruz for 2020!

RobD

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

You think he'd declare money from the Kremlin on his tax returns?

Charles

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

Whatabouterry doesn't work. Trump stinks too - that's why people are plumping for Johnson.

I assume that Trump doesn't want to release his tax return because people will realise he's not as rich as he pretends to be

PlatoSaid

Jonathan said:

If Nate Silver were British, they'd have to call him Nate Gold.

And more zealous Corbynites would be discussing his disgraceful Zionist bias on Twitter.

Morris_Dancer

Miss Plato, it's rather disappointing. Attendance levels are mediocre to atrocious.

We need someone to make the Olympics great again...

DecrepitJohnL

RobD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

The fact that nothing seems to have come out and that the case got abandoned seems to indicate that there is nothing to see.

No one can be in front line politics for decades without picking up some patina.

I thought it was accepted there were top secret files on the server? Whether or not someone else got access to it is besides the point.

No. As per my earlier comment, in purely political terms, those voters likely to be appalled by Clinton's actions here are equally likely to be repelled by Trump. It's a wash, and possibly hurts Trump more if we assume it is a constituency that normally leans Republican.

It's not about infosec, even if it should be. For electoral considerations, this died with the FBI investigation.

Moses_

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

foxinsoxuk

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

Whatabouterry doesn't work. Trump stinks too - that's why people are plumping for Johnson.

I assume that Trump doesn't want to release his tax return because people will realise he's not as rich as he pretends to be

Either he is not as rich as he claims or he is wealth is not taxed.

The Republicans need a thrashing to force them to get their house in order. Labour here too.

kle4

PlatoSaid said:

My word - what the Hell is going on in Rio? Just watching the evening track events and the stadium can't be more than 25% full.

The cameras are zooming right in trying to show spectators without acres of blue empty seats around them. Pitiful.

Camera operators earning their pay if they can keep as much empty space out of the shot, but you have do a wide shot at some point. I know nick p doesn't think it reflects poorly on the Brazilians because why must they be interested i. It, but it is about the optics, the reputation, even the athletes. Some compete year on year in lesser competitions, this is meant to be the culmination of years of toil, the time when they are in the public eye more than any other. They still are on Tv, but roaring crowds adds to the sense, and is it really a unreasonable expectation when awarding the games that the hosts can deliver a good games, which includes atmosphere? Providing a stadium and somewhere for athletes to sleep is a big part of the prep, but there's to having good games than just doing that. Maybe it's not the organisers fault no one wants to go, though maybe they'll show up for the last few days, but it still looks bad.

619

RobD said:

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

You think he'd declare money from the Kremlin on his tax returns?

he would have money coming in from russian front companies.

foxinsoxuk

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

Hey! That is my £350 million per week. I saw it on the bus.

Jonathan

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

If you show me a politician whose integrity has not been questioned that's exactly the sort of politician that you need to question most

Clinton has been under the most intense spotlight for nearly 30 years. She is still going.

Whereas say Leadsom lasted about a week in the spotlight.

kle4

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

kle4

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

Whatabouterry doesn't work. Trump stinks too - that's why people are plumping for Johnson.

I assume that Trump doesn't want to release his tax return because people will realise he's not as rich as he pretends to be

Either he is not as rich as he claims or he is wealth is not taxed.

The Republicans need a thrashing to force them to get their house in order. Labour here too.

Will they get a thrashing though. If they can still do well in the house presumably they'll just pit it down to trump. After all, last time they did an analysis of why they lost and then ignored everything it said.

Jonathan

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Tories only talk the talk if fiscal prudence. When it suits them its quietly dropped and all politically favourable projects are funded from their magic money orchard.

SimonStClare

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Unlesss I'm mistaken, the pledged funds are only what the UK would have handed over to the EU in any event, then dispensed back to the UK as the EU saw fit, minus a large handling fee.

JackW

Harry Enten of 538 looks at Clinton winning 273-265 whilst losing Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and North Carolina. New Hampshire puts Clinton over the line where she is polling strongly :

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-clinton-could-win-without-florida-and-ohio/

PlatoSaid

Just looking at the size of the host teams - Brazil has 465 vs Britain in 2012 at 545.

So not much difference in terms of participants to root for/show up to watch. I'm baffled by the poor attendances. And not buying this too poor stuff - this isn't a dirt poor country with no middle classes.

John_M

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Why is the concept of 'net contributor' apparently so hard for people to grasp?

Charles

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

Whatabouterry doesn't work. Trump stinks too - that's why people are plumping for Johnson.

I assume that Trump doesn't want to release his tax return because people will realise he's not as rich as he pretends to be

Either he is not as rich as he claims or he is wealth is not taxed.

The Republicans need a thrashing to force them to get their house in order. Labour here too.

Could be either.

But my guess is he would see an ultra low tax rate as something to boast about, not something to be ashamed of ("see how smart I am"), hence it is the former

kle4

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Tories only talk the talk if fiscal prudence. When it suits them its quietly dropped and all politically favourable projects are funded from their magic money orchard.

That is true. It's why austerity was on the rocks even before Brexit - the low hanging fruit had been plucked, and though Osborne and Cameron were trying to maintain glacial progress on the deficit, they could force through big changes.

Charles

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

If you show me a politician whose integrity has not been questioned that's exactly the sort of politician that you need to question most

Clinton has been under the most intense spotlight for nearly 30 years. She is still going.

Whereas say Leadsom lasted about a week in the spotlight.

It's a question of degree.

My comments explaining what I really thought was deleted.

I don't know which word triggered it?

Perhaps it was "f***"

or "as"

or may be even "corrupt"?

RobD

foxinsoxuk said:

Charles said:

619 said:

Charles said:

I see that some oversensitive moderator has deleted my comment about why Clinton would be a dreadful person for the US to elect.

The probability of a Presidential candidate suing this site for a comment on a UK website is fadingly small. Even if my comment was somewhat crudely phrased.

My suggestion is that people should look at the money flows. Who made donations to the Clinton Foundation? Were there any interesting decisions made by the Secretary of State that were entirely unconnected with any donations?

Somebody whose integrity is not without question is not a suitable holder of the Office of President.

we should say the same about what money is coming in from russia to trump. whats in his tax returns which scares him so much to be made public?

And trump? integrity? ha ha ha ha ha

Whatabouterry doesn't work. Trump stinks too - that's why people are plumping for Johnson.

I assume that Trump doesn't want to release his tax return because people will realise he's not as rich as he pretends to be

Either he is not as rich as he claims or he is wealth is not taxed.

The Republicans need a thrashing to force them to get their house in order. Labour here too.

The US has a wealth tax?

david_herdson

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If Donald Trump loses support to the Libertarians, presumably some of Bernie Sanders' supporters will feel free to express support for the Greens. So the impact on the main event of defections to minor parties will be muted, though still presumably of overall benefit to Hillary Clinton.

I think there's value in betting Hilary Clinton to get under 50% of the vote
(I'm personally targeting 45-50%).

It covers you in case the unthinkable happens and she loses... but it's also where she has been consistently polling...

I think that's a very likely outcome.

kle4

SimonStClare said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Unlesss I'm mistaken, the pledged funds are only what the UK would have handed over to the EU in any event, then dispensed back to the UK as the EU saw fit, minus a large handling fee.

Maybe so, but it was meant for the NHS.

I'm just kidding, it sounds reasonably sensible, although we will take an economic hit of some stretch so at sone point maintaining or adding to spending planes won't be possible.

Moses_

PlatoSaid said:

My word - what the Hell is going on in Rio? Just watching the evening track events and the stadium can't be more than 25% full.

The cameras are zooming right in trying to show spectators without acres of blue empty seats around them. Pitiful.

This might partly explain it. Protests about the president (impeachment) as well as local authorities expenditure on the games the residents say they can ill afford. Street vendors being moved also doesn't help the overall situation. Protests were ongoing for quite some time and even a ruling from local judges that t shirts of protest can be worn at the various stadia. ( not all mentioned in this link but have been mentioned over the last few months)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/05/thousands-join-anti-olympic-protest-in-rio-before-games-begin/

Charles

Jonathan said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Tories only talk the talk if fiscal prudence. When it suits them its quietly dropped and all politically favourable projects are funded from their magic money orchard.

I think this one is reasonable - providing certainty about multi-year funding applications (e.g. if you apply for a 3 year grant from the EU, do you know it will still all be there?)

But it doesn't detract from the accuracy of your general point

kle4

John_M said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Why is the concept of 'net contributor' apparently so hard for people to grasp?

It was a joke based on the fact that I believe we have abandoned austerity, whether this is funded or not.

Moses_

SimonStClare said:

kle4 said:

Moses_ said:

Well this is one answer to the questions posed since Brexit

"Government Pledges Billions Of Pounds To Plug EU Funding Gap
Groups that face losing EU funding when Britain leaves the union are promised up to £4.5bn a year of Government cash"

http://news.sky.com/story/treasury-pledges-1634bn-to-replace-eu-funding-10533894

The magic money tree has been found!

Unlesss I'm mistaken, the pledged funds are only what the UK would have handed over to the EU in any event, then dispensed back to the UK as the EU saw fit, minus a large handling fee.

Mr Simon shhhhh... You are ruining the effects of "vapid bilge" amongst some of the PB clientele

SimonStClare

PlatoSaid said:

Just looking at the size of the host teams - Brazil has 465 vs Britain in 2012 at 545.

So not much difference in terms of participants to root for/show up to watch. I'm baffled by the poor attendances. And not buying this too poor stuff - this isn't a dirt poor country with no middle classes.

For the ‘poor’ there are still all the road races and marathon events where they could line the streets for free. – Wiggin’s London win was reshown again last night, every inch of pavement lining the route was ten deep, an estimated 200K minimum. – I’ve seen nothing to match it from Rio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0RULoSaoOg

PlatoSaid

Hmm, we've no competitors in the Decathlon. What a pity - its the greatest event of all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/34813797