politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to make Clinton a 60%+ chance even though the polling remains very tight
This is, of course, all about the outcomes in the key swing states but the national surveys gives us a good overview of the election that takes place in just 46 days time.
Just from what I see on C-Span, both candidates are looking quite haggard. This is quite a difference from '84 when a spry but doomed Mondale faced off against an even more apparently invigorated Reagan (despite having been literally gunned down a couple years before.)
Just from what I see on C-Span, both candidates are looking quite haggard. This is quite a difference from '84 when a spry but doomed Mondale faced off against an even more apparently invigorated Reagan (despite having been literally gunned down a couple years before.)
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes
Why do you see those as a huge negative for him. Is it not possible that a good slew of voters will vote for him - because - he supposedly has those views?
The second will get him a good few votes and as for the first parts ofAmerica is more like South Africa used to be than South Africa is. Outside places like NY most people lead pretty segregated lives
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
There might be a bit of being wise after the event, but there's been a fair amount of analysis that suggests that the leave campaign was a lot better than was portrayed at the time.
There was a curious moment in the documentary last night when Boris met a local campaign manager (can't remember where, may have been Leicestershire) and the manager was very bullish about how things were going locally. Perhaps it's confirmation bias but Boris did look taken aback by that as though that wasn't quite what he wanted to hear.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes
Why do you see those as a huge negative for him. Is it not possible that a good slew of voters will vote for him - because - he supposedly has those views?
The second will get him a good few votes and as for the first parts ofAmerica is more like South Africa used to be than South Africa is. Outside places like NY most people lead pretty segregated lives
1. most people dont want to start a war involving nukes, especially if they act as unhinged as trump does. 2. the same poll said had 69% of people saying that they were concerned about trumps views on immigrants and black people.
I've not expressed a view on the local changes (which divide Broxtowe into two, both of them less Tory than the current one because of additions from outside).
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
There might be a bit of being wise after the event, but there's been a fair amount of analysis that suggests that the leave campaign was a lot better than was portrayed at the time.
There was a curious moment in the documentary last night when Boris met a local campaign manager (can't remember where, may have been Leicestershire) and the manager was very bullish about how things were going locally. Perhaps it's confirmation bias but Boris did look taken aback by that as though that wasn't quite what he wanted to hear.
Clearly they had some GOTV operation but much of it seemed to be based on street stalls
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes
Why do you see those as a huge negative for him. Is it not possible that a good slew of voters will vote for him - because - he supposedly has those views?
The second will get him a good few votes and as for the first parts ofAmerica is more like South Africa used to be than South Africa is. Outside places like NY most people lead pretty segregated lives
I used to have a house in a small Virginian town of 650 souls. The black area of town was referred to as Jamaica by everyone without a hint of awareness that it might offend. There was virtually no integration of whites and blacks, regardless of education or income level. Latinos lived mainly in the white part of town.
This is not ancient history - it holds to this day.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
I've not expressed a view on the local changes (which divide Broxtowe into two, both of them less Tory than the current one because of additions from outside).
Not surprising, her life is made rather difficult by them.
I know, Yorkshire's reign as champions is over. Too bad it was that county that does not exist that took the title.
Proof that just because a county doesn't have a county council doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cheshire and IIRC Berkshire are other examples.
During the 2011 Census we had requests for data for Middlesex. I was in favour of politely pointing out that it doesn't exist. I was overruled.
Correctly. If you rely on county councils you end up with absurdities like Derby not being in Derbyshire.
Sorry, when I say overruled, I mean I had to be more polite. If you want to see the results for the old ceremonial county of Derbyshire you can combine Derby and Derbyshire CC. Middlesex, on the other hand, does not exist. It got split up in to Greater London Councils and I believe a bit went to Surrey.
I know, Yorkshire's reign as champions is over. Too bad it was that county that does not exist that took the title.
Proof that just because a county doesn't have a county council doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cheshire and IIRC Berkshire are other examples.
During the 2011 Census we had requests for data for Middlesex. I was in favour of politely pointing out that it doesn't exist. I was overruled.
Correctly. If you rely on county councils you end up with absurdities like Derby not being in Derbyshire.
Kansas City isn't in Kansas...
Oh, but it is! The actual conurbation straddles the state line. There is a Kansas City, MO, and a Kansas City, KS. The latter is the 3rd largest city in KS, and the 3rd largest city of the areas making up Kansas City metropolitan area.
"Labour has lost the support of more than half of those who voted Labour in 2015 and Brexit in 2016, according to new Times/YouGov polling. Just 48 per cent of Brexit-backing Labour voters said they would stick with the party in the next election. Nine per cent said they would switch to the Tories and eight per cent to UKIP."
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
A bit hard to get 50 million when the electorate was only 44 million.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
I wonder how many people took part in the competition.
"New Times: John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland Conventional class-consciousness has been overtaken by collective resentment. We must face the fact Labour as we know it may very well soon not exist."
I've not expressed a view on the local changes (which divide Broxtowe into two, both of them less Tory than the current one because of additions from outside).
I would have voted UKIP in your constituency, even if that had let you in.
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Did u campaign with them?
As I say, I was a constituency co-ordinator. So there on the ground throughout and fielding a lot of emails and calls around the day job too.
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
A bit hard to get 50 million when the electorate was only 44 million.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
I think people are conflating Trump and Leave too much.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
too late for that. the 'trump pivot' has and will never happen.
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
I don't think it's that calculated. We've watched a narcissist having fun. In the debates he's going to be aiming to have fun and grab the headlines. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton will be trying not to make a gaffe. Fun usually beats boring, initially at least.
lying ted cruz bends over for the man who accused his dad of killing jfk and who called his wife ugly
He wants the nomination in 2020 if Trump loses, that will be the reason
A disastrous Clinton presidency (which is a near certainty) will help the Republican candidate immensely in 2020.
Yes but it would have to be an apocalyptic Clinton presidency for Cruz to win, like Labour for the Tories the GOP could well be the gift which keeps on giving for the Dems!
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
A bit hard to get 50 million when the electorate was only 44 million.
I know, Yorkshire's reign as champions is over. Too bad it was that county that does not exist that took the title.
Proof that just because a county doesn't have a county council doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cheshire and IIRC Berkshire are other examples.
During the 2011 Census we had requests for data for Middlesex. I was in favour of politely pointing out that it doesn't exist. I was overruled.
Correctly. If you rely on county councils you end up with absurdities like Derby not being in Derbyshire.
Sorry, when I say overruled, I mean I had to be more polite. If you want to see the results for the old ceremonial county of Derbyshire you can combine Derby and Derbyshire CC. Middlesex, on the other hand, does not exist. It got split up in to Greater London Councils and I believe a bit went to Surrey.
I know, Yorkshire's reign as champions is over. Too bad it was that county that does not exist that took the title.
Proof that just because a county doesn't have a county council doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Cheshire and IIRC Berkshire are other examples.
During the 2011 Census we had requests for data for Middlesex. I was in favour of politely pointing out that it doesn't exist. I was overruled.
Correctly. If you rely on county councils you end up with absurdities like Derby not being in Derbyshire.
Kansas City isn't in Kansas...
Oh, but it is! The actual conurbation straddles the state line. There is a Kansas City, MO, and a Kansas City, KS. The latter is the 3rd largest city in KS, and the 3rd largest city of the areas making up Kansas City metropolitan area.
KC KS is a new innovation. They used to be known as Lenaxa, Olathe and Overland - far more useful descriptors
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
I think people are conflating Trump and Leave too much.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Perhaps, though the libertarians who voted Leave in the UK are now with Johnson rather than Clinton. Also, if the US had UK demographics Trump would probably now be favourite
Sorry, when I say overruled, I mean I had to be more polite. If you want to see the results for the old ceremonial county of Derbyshire you can combine Derby and Derbyshire CC. Middlesex, on the other hand, does not exist. It got split up in to Greater London Councils and I believe a bit went to Surrey.
Indeed, Staines, Stanwell, Ashford and surrounding areas went to Surrey but have retained Middlesex in the postal address.
Parts of Middlesex went to Hillingdon and others to new unitary authorities formed out of the rest of the county.
We now have an absurd hotch-potch of unitary and two-tier local Government which is confusing and unsatisfactory. No one and especially the Conservatives has the stomach for further re-organisation though in effect many of the authorities are already merging via collaborative working, partnerships, joint ventures and the like.
I also question the viability of having individuals serving as both Borough and County Councillors contemporaneously or even at the same time. They are separate sovereign authorities and businesses and it looks odd to have the same individuals having a foot in both camps.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Did u campaign with them?
As I say, I was a constituency co-ordinator. So there on the ground throughout and fielding a lot of emails and calls around the day job too.
Another example. In a Hampshire area (10,000+ voters) with only Lib Dem councillors with networks able to deliver 4+ leaflets each campaign, they were out delievered at least 2:1 by LEAVErs. No REMAIN posters seen only LEAVE (usually lots of LDs in election periods).
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Did u campaign with them?
As I say, I was a constituency co-ordinator. So there on the ground throughout and fielding a lot of emails and calls around the day job too.
Thank you for your efforts. And in an important part of the country for Leave too.
I've not expressed a view on the local changes (which divide Broxtowe into two, both of them less Tory than the current one because of additions from outside).
I would have voted UKIP in your constituency, even if that had let you in.
Me to. Kippers for Nick! May be Broxtowe voters could get Conservative MPs next time if Sourby is deselected, hic..
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
I don't think it's that calculated. We've watched a narcissist having fun. In the debates he's going to be aiming to have fun and grab the headlines. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton will be trying not to make a gaffe. Fun usually beats boring, initially at least.
In McMurphy vs Ratched, the people will be with Mac.
Sorry, when I say overruled, I mean I had to be more polite. If you want to see the results for the old ceremonial county of Derbyshire you can combine Derby and Derbyshire CC. Middlesex, on the other hand, does not exist. It got split up in to Greater London Councils and I believe a bit went to Surrey.
Indeed, Staines, Stanwell, Ashford and surrounding areas went to Surrey but have retained Middlesex in the postal address.
Parts of Middlesex went to Hillingdon and others to new unitary authorities formed out of the rest of the county.
We now have an absurd hotch-potch of unitary and two-tier local Government which is confusing and unsatisfactory. No one and especially the Conservatives has the stomach for further re-organisation though in effect many of the authorities are already merging via collaborative working, partnerships, joint ventures and the like.
I also question the viability of having individuals serving as both Borough and County Councillors contemporaneously or even at the same time. They are separate sovereign authorities and businesses and it looks odd to have the same individuals having a foot in both camps.
We had a bloke like that around here. He was a member of both the district and county councils and collecting allowances from both. He was in fact a full-time politician, but as he was a Conservative in a solidly Conservative area and well in with the old dears who run the local association nobody thought to question it. I expect there are lots of people from all different parties pulling off the same trick all over the country,
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
I don't think it's that calculated. We've watched a narcissist having fun. In the debates he's going to be aiming to have fun and grab the headlines. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton will be trying not to make a gaffe. Fun usually beats boring, initially at least.
In McMurphy vs Ratched, the people will be with Mac.
So Trump will try to strangle Hillary, be lobotomised and then be suffocated by Chris Christie?
Like OGH I'm currently weighted towards Donald Trump. My reading is that he may well do ok in the debates and he is accordingly likely to shorten.
It may have been a strategy of his to get the mad racist stuff out there early to attract the kind of people it attracts, and play nice from here on in to help the people it offends, forget about it. A combination of that, and another Hillary health glitch, might put him in with a serious shout.
I don't think it's that calculated. We've watched a narcissist having fun. In the debates he's going to be aiming to have fun and grab the headlines. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton will be trying not to make a gaffe. Fun usually beats boring, initially at least.
In McMurphy vs Ratched, the people will be with Mac.
So Trump will try to strangle Hillary, be lobotomised and then be suffocated by Chris Christie?
Imagine the stunning victory Cameron would have had if he had denounced the EU for being short sightedly intransigent and doctrinal in his renegotiation with them and campaigned for Brexit.
Imagine the stunning victory Cameron would have had if he had denounced the EU for being short sightedly intransigent and doctrinal in his renegotiation with them and campaigned for Brexit.
You're making the usual Leaver mistake of assuming that Remainers didn't believe that they were advocating the right course of action for the country as they saw it.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
I think people are conflating Trump and Leave too much.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Perhaps, though the libertarians who voted Leave in the UK are now with Johnson rather than Clinton. Also, if the US had UK demographics Trump would probably now be favourite
Agreed, the parallels only run so far; I'm firmly in the Leave/Johnson camp. If only Trump and Clinton really could both lose!
We had a bloke like that around here. He was a member of both the district and county councils and collecting allowances from both. He was in fact a full-time politician, but as he was a Conservative in a solidly Conservative area and well in with the old dears who run the local association nobody thought to question it. I expect there are lots of people from all different parties pulling off the same trick all over the country,
Indeed, Mr Llama and my comment wasn't meant as a jibe against councillors from any particular party (the LDs and Labour do it as well).
The overwhelming majority of these "two headed" councillors do so out of a sense of public duty and a strong desire to do the best for their area.
My problem is the local Councillor can afford to be parochial - the County Councillor has a larger area and I think carrying that parochial attitude up the line inhibits strategic decision making which often involves disadvantaging one area to achieve a greater benefit elsewhere. That benefit won't be obvious - the disadvantage will.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Did u campaign with them?
As I say, I was a constituency co-ordinator. So there on the ground throughout and fielding a lot of emails and calls around the day job too.
Thank you for your efforts. And in an important part of the country for Leave too.
Thanks. My constituency (Colchester) was probably the weakest part of Essex for Leave though. That said, 53.6% for Colchester Borough (which also includes a few bits of Bernard Jenkin's Harwich and North Essex and Priti Patel's Witham), when the constituency had a Lib Dem MP until 2015 and therefore a fairly strong Remain ground operation was a result we were very happy with.
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
I think people are conflating Trump and Leave too much.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Perhaps, though the libertarians who voted Leave in the UK are now with Johnson rather than Clinton. Also, if the US had UK demographics Trump would probably now be favourite
Agreed, the parallels only run so far; I'm firmly in the Leave/Johnson camp. If only Trump and Clinton really could both lose!
Many feel that way although one of them will have to win
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Albeit Leave got 17 million, rather short of its 50 million target then even if it did narrowly win! Presumably Trump's campaign must have identified some supporters in the primaries too
I think people are conflating Trump and Leave too much.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Perhaps, though the libertarians who voted Leave in the UK are now with Johnson rather than Clinton. Also, if the US had UK demographics Trump would probably now be favourite
Agreed, the parallels only run so far; I'm firmly in the Leave/Johnson camp. If only Trump and Clinton really could both lose!
There's a campaign to make Boris leave? Where do I sign up?
"she bored them rigid with whining, lefty, PC crap"
Funny how Harry Potter, a film about comradeship and mutual support has turned its main stars into compassionate, thoughtful people. Good for them I say. Go Em Rupe and Dan
whilst i agree about echoes of brexit, i think the big difference is consequence.
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
Trump really has missed a trick with the lack of voter registration, ground campaign, and (one presumes) GOTV operation.
Was the Leave GOTV effort really that better in comparison? Essentially if the election were tomorrow Hillary would scrape home, however if Trump has a convincing win in the debate on Monday and holds his own in the other debates he could well clinch the presidency. Of course Leave was generally felt to have done best in the debates in the referendum campaign
I'd say so: between freepost slips on leaflets, street stall sign-ups, door knocking, and the 50million campaign we identified thousands of definite or highly likely voters in every constituency to target in the run-up to and on June the 23rd.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
Did u campaign with them?
As I say, I was a constituency co-ordinator. So there on the ground throughout and fielding a lot of emails and calls around the day job too.
Thank you for your efforts. And in an important part of the country for Leave too.
Thanks. My constituency (Colchester) was probably the weakest part of Essex for Leave though. That said, 53.6% for Colchester Borough (which also includes a few bits of Bernard Jenkin's Harwich and North Essex and Priti Patel's Witham), when the constituency had a Lib Dem MP until 2015 and therefore a fairly strong Remain ground operation was a result we were very happy with.
Actually, not quite the weakest part. Just checked and Uttlesford (Saffron Walden, Stansted etc) was 50.7% and Chelmsford was 52.8%. Still, far from the best result in Essex!
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
We had a bloke like that around here. He was a member of both the district and county councils and collecting allowances from both. He was in fact a full-time politician, but as he was a Conservative in a solidly Conservative area and well in with the old dears who run the local association nobody thought to question it. I expect there are lots of people from all different parties pulling off the same trick all over the country,
Indeed, Mr Llama and my comment wasn't meant as a jibe against councillors from any particular party (the LDs and Labour do it as well).
The overwhelming majority of these "two headed" councillors do so out of a sense of public duty and a strong desire to do the best for their area.
My problem is the local Councillor can afford to be parochial - the County Councillor has a larger area and I think carrying that parochial attitude up the line inhibits strategic decision making which often involves disadvantaging one area to achieve a greater benefit elsewhere. That benefit won't be obvious - the disadvantage will.
"This is, of course, all about the outcomes in the key swing states but the national surveys gives us a good overview of the election that takes place in just 46 days time."
Nate Silver's model seems inconsistent on the relationship between national vote and swing states.
He currently shows Clinton with an average lead of 2.6% nationally. He also shows a much higher likelihood of Clinton winning the national vote but losing the electoral college (7.2%) than of Trump doing the same (1.2%). That implies Trump's votes are more efficiently distributed than Clinton's.
However, those figures also mean that a 1.3% swing to Trump would make the national votes equal, whereas Silver's state-by-state figures would require a 1.75% swing to Trump for him to win the electoral college. That implies Clinton's votes are more efficiently distributed than Trump's!
Did Schultz really say no single mrket access without free movement? Surely almost everyone has 'access' to the single market? Membership without free movement would obviously be a non-starter but what are they up to?
At most I suspect they are deliberately trying to confuse. You see it on this site everyday where people say access when what they are talking about is membership. Sometimes it is just sloppy thinking, sometimes, perhaps, it is just a subtle extension of project fear.
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
If you have any Apple products, then there is a fair chance they were "made" in the Hollyhill factory in Ireland*.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
I don't touch Apple products, Mr. Robert. I can get good enough functionality from elsewhere a lot cheaper. I am of course aware that a lot of stuff is made in the EU and indeed in the UK. That wasn't the point of my post though as I am sure you are aware.
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.
I would have voted UKIP in your constituency, even if that had let you in.
Anna is ruder about UKIP than I'd ever be
It is a fact in that new book which states that the more leftie you are the ruder you are about people in other parties. Since Sourby is further left than you, your comment fits.
Comments
sneaky edit there! tse's Yorkshire link is lost
polls before said that only a small percentage ( 25/30%?) thought that voting LEAVE would have negative effects on the country
compare that to the over 50% if people who think trump is a racist and who think he will use nukes. and a lack of extra voter registration
regan forgot he had been shot.
The second will get him a good few votes and as for the first parts ofAmerica is more like South Africa used to be than South Africa is. Outside places like NY most people lead pretty segregated lives
There was a curious moment in the documentary last night when Boris met a local campaign manager (can't remember where, may have been Leicestershire) and the manager was very bullish about how things were going locally. Perhaps it's confirmation bias but Boris did look taken aback by that as though that wasn't quite what he wanted to hear.
Source: former constituency co-ordinator for Vote Leave
lying ted cruz bends over for the man who accused his dad of killing jfk and who called his wife ugly
2. the same poll said had 69% of people saying that they were concerned about trumps views on immigrants and black people.
https://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2016/09/23/news-from-anna-soubry-mp-september-23-2016/#more-25848
I've not expressed a view on the local changes (which divide Broxtowe into two, both of them less Tory than the current one because of additions from outside).
anything higher than a 25% chance for trump winning worries me, because he is a crazy racist
flip flopping cruz wont move the dial either way, i just find it funny h being humiliated
This is not ancient history - it holds to this day.
https://twitter.com/AngelaCassidy83/status/779360951430680576
"Labour has lost the support of more than half of those who voted Labour in 2015 and Brexit in 2016, according to new Times/YouGov polling.
Just 48 per cent of Brexit-backing Labour voters said they would stick with the party in the next election. Nine per cent said they would switch to the Tories and eight per cent to UKIP."
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/09/brexit-voters-are-ditching-labour/
Conventional class-consciousness has been overtaken by collective resentment. We must face the fact Labour as we know it may very well soon not exist."
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2016/09/new-times-john-harris-why-labour-losing-its-heartland
Looking around my study very little of the goodies have been made in the EU, save probably most of the books. The keyboard on which I type, the computers, the monitors, the Kindle, the phone, the printer have all been made in countries that are not members of the single market and which do not have a free trade agreement with the EU. Yet they were all bought here in the UK.
Leave in the UK might turn out to be something of a unique case. The EU was uniquely overbearing and the status quo membership of the UK had become politically untenable here.
Leave won because it combined the 35-40% voting against immigration and concerned about globalisation with the 10-15% who were concerned about sovereignty.
Without either of the other Leave couldn't have won. In the US, it might transpire that Trump just has the former.
Parts of Middlesex went to Hillingdon and others to new unitary authorities formed out of the rest of the county.
We now have an absurd hotch-potch of unitary and two-tier local Government which is confusing and unsatisfactory. No one and especially the Conservatives has the stomach for further re-organisation though in effect many of the authorities are already merging via collaborative working, partnerships, joint ventures and the like.
I also question the viability of having individuals serving as both Borough and County Councillors contemporaneously or even at the same time. They are separate sovereign authorities and businesses and it looks odd to have the same individuals having a foot in both camps.
May be Broxtowe voters could get Conservative MPs next time if Sourby is deselected, hic..
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/779381369604571136
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/779381076519186432
The overwhelming majority of these "two headed" councillors do so out of a sense of public duty and a strong desire to do the best for their area.
My problem is the local Councillor can afford to be parochial - the County Councillor has a larger area and I think carrying that parochial attitude up the line inhibits strategic decision making which often involves disadvantaging one area to achieve a greater benefit elsewhere. That benefit won't be obvious - the disadvantage will.
* "Made" is a relative term.
But, more seriously, there is a surprising amount of "stuff" that's made in Europe.
Nate Silver's model seems inconsistent on the relationship between national vote and swing states.
He currently shows Clinton with an average lead of 2.6% nationally. He also shows a much higher likelihood of Clinton winning the national vote but losing the electoral college (7.2%) than of Trump doing the same (1.2%). That implies Trump's votes are more efficiently distributed than Clinton's.
However, those figures also mean that a 1.3% swing to Trump would make the national votes equal, whereas Silver's state-by-state figures would require a 1.75% swing to Trump for him to win the electoral college. That implies Clinton's votes are more efficiently distributed than Trump's!
Membership of the single market is not needed to sell into it. Lots of countries manage to do that quite successfully and don't have to belong to the EEA or pay subscriptions or accept any sort of free movement of people arrangement to do so.