politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump winning the online, unscientific, polling

SystemSystem Posts: 12,265
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump winning the online, unscientific, polling

Such a great honor. Final debate polls are in – and the MOVEMENT wins!#AmericaFirst #MAGA #ImWithYouhttps://t.co/3KWOl2ibaW pic.twitter.com/sfCEE3I5pF

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Trolling 619!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,064
    Evening all :)

    As long as the anger has access to the Internet, it will find a way to express itself.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    two post debate polls have a 4 point swing to clinton. good swing!
  • Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    I just talked with everyone in my office and they think this new policy is great. (...ducks and runs....)
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    63% of PB users disagree with this policy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,840
    Very late to the party and off topic, but having just now seen Allardyce's comments, I really don't know why people in his situation pretend to accept they've done wrong, because he self evidently doesn't by moaning so much about entrapment.

    Also, does this policy on voodoo polls also apply as a moratorium against making the 'voodoo pole' joke?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Did you hear about the psephologist from Warsaw who moved to Haiti?

    He became a Voodoo Pole!

    (please don't moderate me!)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,239
    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,239
    Did they really get their 100m audience for the debate by the way? If they did then surely people will make their own minds up?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,755
    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    was this pre or post debate?

    clinton said early voting was up in north carolina and the people watching the debate was certainly the highest in tv history

    it may not lead to a high turn out election but it is an indicator that it is
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,239
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.
    He was and he consistently does better in our competitions than me but I still have reservations about the breadth of his sample on this occasion!

    It is a deeply lousy choice. If I had a vote it would go to Hillary but I think I would need a shower when I got back from the polling station.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,782
    DavidL said:

    Did they really get their 100m audience for the debate by the way? If they did then surely people will make their own minds up?

    84m
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,239
    To answer my own question apparently 80.9m watched the debate but it is being claimed to be the most watched of all time because that does not include the live streaming which was not a big factor when the previous record was made in 1980.
    http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/debate-ratings-jump-23-percent

    Not sure that is consistent with very low turnouts but who knows? Freak shows have always been quite popular.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.

    Absolutely not a cross section! All university and beyond in terms of education, Silicon Valley, East Coast and Chicago, well travelled, a lot of Jews. They acknowledge very openly they are not typical, by any stretch. What got me was their total resignation about President Trump and their pessimism about what it will mean. One said Clinton would mean more wars abroad, while Trump would mean civil war at home.

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited September 2016
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.
    He was and he consistently does better in our competitions than me but I still have reservations about the breadth of his sample on this occasion!

    It is a deeply lousy choice. If I had a vote it would go to Hillary but I think I would need a shower when I got back from the polling station.
    It's a myth that SO is a poor tipster. He's had his share of clangers but more often than not he's right.
    I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    edited September 2016
    Hillary is now probably up by about 3-5% based on the poll results we are now seeing coming out, which would be around the margin by which Obama beat Romney, perhaps fractionally larger. However historically the loser of the first debate in US elections often tends to do better in the second, as Obama did in 2012, Bush in 2004, Reagan in 1984 etc so there is still room for Trump to come back. In 2000 Gore also had his best performance in the third debate which may have helped him win the popular vote. With 2 debates to go still everything to play for and much also depends on Trump getting out his white working class base
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    The origin of the publication means nothing on the internet where links can be rapidly spread saying to "fix" a result:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtVw5K3WEAATjMB.jpg
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    yeah its not a sample size if its 1.6 million
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    Hillary is now probably up by about 3-5% based on the poll results we are now seeing coming out, which would be around the margin by which Obama beat Romney, perhaps fractionally larger. However historically the loser of the first debate in US elections often tends to do better in the second, as Obama did in 2012, Bush in 2004, Reagan in 1984 etc so there is still room for Trump to come back. In 2000 Gore also had his best performance in the third debate which may have helped him win the popular vote. With 2 debates to go still everything to play for and much also depends on Trump getting out his white working class base

    thats if they learn or change anything. like hoping for a never coming trump pivot...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,755
    edited September 2016
    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    619 said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    yeah its not a sample size if its 1.6 million
    also they dont have a system to weed out multiple votes. even fox news have said today to ignore them!
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    619 said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    yeah its not a sample size if its 1.6 million
    why not?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,291
    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    Voting Johnson because other candidates are unhinged is an interesting approach given his recent interviews
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    Just to clarify: I am not making a prediction, just reporting. I have learned my lesson with US politics! Just to add, though: the same cohort was probably around 40% Romney in 2012 having been 90% Obama in 2008.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    619 said:

    619 said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    yeah its not a sample size if its 1.6 million
    also they dont have a system to weed out multiple votes. even fox news have said today to ignore them!
    Disappointing if news organisations of the stature of Time don't just not do these polls, if they have not satisfied themselves that they have some sort of validity. Presumably they run them for the ad revenue?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,755
    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    Voting Johnson because other candidates are unhinged is an interesting approach given his recent interviews
    It's hardly a great choice, overall.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    20 mins in of CH4 news. Have I missed their coverage of Jezza's big speech? I don't think it has been mentioned yet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Hillary is now probably up by about 3-5% based on the poll results we are now seeing coming out, which would be around the margin by which Obama beat Romney, perhaps fractionally larger. However historically the loser of the first debate in US elections often tends to do better in the second, as Obama did in 2012, Bush in 2004, Reagan in 1984 etc so there is still room for Trump to come back. In 2000 Gore also had his best performance in the third debate which may have helped him win the popular vote. With 2 debates to go still everything to play for and much also depends on Trump getting out his white working class base

    thats if they learn or change anything. like hoping for a never coming trump pivot...
    We wills see in the next few weeks. However the LA Times today still has Trump ahead and remember it was higher than expected white working class turnout which confounded most of the pollsters in EUref. If the same happens in November in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio then Trump will be president
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    The people I was working with in Florida last week would disagree. You pay your money and take your choice.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    619 said:

    619 said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    yeah its not a sample size if its 1.6 million
    also they dont have a system to weed out multiple votes. even fox news have said today to ignore them!
    So they did, good for them. http://uk.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    My TV has just had their weird episode again...it started showing some stuff from the 70s in place of CH4 news.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    I'm still struggling to find any excitement about WH2016, it's just so dull.

    I can't get excited about Trump either it reminds me of the 80s when europeans were convince Ronnie Ray Gun would start world war 3. In the event he ended the Cold War.

    I just think Europeans arent qualified to see the world through the eyes of Joe Yank, we have different values and impose them on others.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,755
    The way I see the choice in this election is similar to the choice between the Italian Communists and the Christian Democrats, prior to 1992.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    Conference bounce....Corbynism sweeping the nation...
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,963
    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    Voting Johnson because other candidates are unhinged is an interesting approach given his recent interviews
    Voting Johnson is a way of sticking it to mediocre career politicians without voting for Trump, and as a bonus gives a middle finger to the failed two-party system.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    619 said:

    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
    if theyre the wrong side of the current system, the chance to shake it up.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    NO thread on the LOTO keynote speech at the Labour Conference. I have to say I am surprised.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    SquareRoot said:

    NO thread on the LOTO keynote speech at the Labour Conference. I have to say I am surprised.

    Still no thread on GBBO...this site is becoming a disgrace ;-)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,039
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    Conference bounce....Corbynism sweeping the nation...
    "Corbynism fans sweeping up in the nation" is more like it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,755
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That ranks as a good poll, comparatively speaking, for Labour.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,782
    edited September 2016
    Clinton has just moved from a 55.8% chance to 58.2% on 538 based on latest poll.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That ranks as a good poll, comparatively speaking, for Labour.
    Only on the basis of a 'younger, fresher face' which is not an option at the moment, 2020 will be Corbyn and McDonnell and the poll shows a 2% swing to the Tories since the election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    619 said:

    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
    It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Ishmael_X said:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/27/cnbc-time-magazine-online-polls-say-donald-trump-w/

    Sample sizes: CNBC 960,300 Time over 1.6m

    Clearly the samples are self-selected and therefore biased to people who are too active on the internet for their own good, but OTOH we can assume that the pollsters have some kind of check in place to weed out gross cases of multiple submissions. So I think " votes originating from Russian troll farms" is a non-starter of a theory, and these polls have an information value higher than zero. Also note that these are not Trump-leaning publications, it's not just Fox and Breitbart. I don't trust them, but then I don't trust "scientific" polling much either.

    They have the most basic checking imaginable, they put a cookie on your machine. Clear your cookies and you can vote again.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,782
    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    They don't seem very shy to me in their own country! Voters for Clinton might be equally shy given how unpopular she is. But you are right. It would be extremely unwise to completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote. This is a known unknown
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,075
    Mr. Root, didn't Miliband have a 10 point lead during the middle of the last Parliament?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,257
    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    My view of Trump is similar to that of Steve Hilton. I don't know if he's truly bigoted or not, but he is definitely a shock jock who enjoys getting attention - the more negative and outrageous the better - and he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    If I were a US citizen, now, I'd vote Johnson. But, had I been born and brought up in America as a US citizen my whole life, I would probably now be drawn to Trump.

    I would certainly not vote for Clinton. The US political system needs anything but her.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,713
    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    My view of Trump is similar to that of Steve Hilton. I don't know if he's truly bigoted or not, but he is definitely a shock jock who enjoys getting attention - the more negative and outrageous the better - and he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    If I were a US citizen, now, I'd vote Johnson. But, had I been born and brought up in America as a US citizen my whole life, I would probably now be drawn to Trump.

    I would certainly not vote for Clinton. The US political system needs anything but her.
    he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    so President Boris
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
    It is a GB wide poll. So it is an 8% bump GB wide
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    edited September 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
    It is a GB wide poll. So it is an 8% bump GB wide
    With who as Leader? Owen Thingy? Miss Bucket? Eddie Izzard? Kermit the Frog? Bungle from Rainbow?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    My TV has just had their weird episode again...it started showing some stuff from the 70s in place of CH4 news.

    Somehow they have colorised a 1970s Labour conference - a remarkable feat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
    It is a GB wide poll. So it is an 8% bump GB wide
    With who as Leader? Owen Thingy? Miss Bucket? Eddie Izzard? Kermit the Frog? Bungle from Rainbow?
    No, a generic 'younger, fresher face' so essentially little help until after 2020, Smith and Balls did little better than Corbyn
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,158
    Barnesian said:

    Clinton has just moved from a 55.8% chance to 58.2% on 538 based on latest poll.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Seems a bit of a sharp move for one poll, a poll that doesn't have a rating on their site.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
    It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
    There could be any number of shy voters, for a variety of reasons. If I was a Hillary voter in Kentucky then I would be shy, ditto a Trump supporter in DC.

    One way to look at this is to look at whether there has been an uptick in Blue Collar White Americans in swing states such as Ohio or NC. From what I have seen here I have seen no evidence (indeed in NC Democrats were registering faster than previous).

    Lets look at some facts rather than Brexiteer wet dreams (though I think Trump will be bad for Brexit Britain as the last thing we need is a trade war).

  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Yvette Cooper urged Mrs May to take in 500 child refugees today. Has Yvette filled up her home with refugees yet? Just interested in asking.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    HYUFD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
    It is a GB wide poll. So it is an 8% bump GB wide
    With who as Leader? Owen Thingy? Miss Bucket? Eddie Izzard? Kermit the Frog? Bungle from Rainbow?
    No, a generic 'younger, fresher face' so essentially little help until after 2020, Smith and Balls did little better than Corbyn
    It did occur to me during Corbyn's speech that perhaps he should swap places with the man doing the signing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    Alanbrooke said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    My view of Trump is similar to that of Steve Hilton. I don't know if he's truly bigoted or not, but he is definitely a shock jock who enjoys getting attention - the more negative and outrageous the better - and he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    If I were a US citizen, now, I'd vote Johnson. But, had I been born and brought up in America as a US citizen my whole life, I would probably now be drawn to Trump.

    I would certainly not vote for Clinton. The US political system needs anything but her.
    he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    so President Boris
    "What's a Beko?"
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited September 2016
    From John Daniel Davidson's piece in the conservative and libertarian-friendly website The Federalist, entitled "The Best-Case Scenario For 2016: Mike Pence Or Tim Kaine": "All the talk about Hillary Clinton’s health following her collapse in New York on Sunday should remind conservatives—and all Americans—of a simple and upsetting truth: the best-case scenario for the next four years is that we end up with President Mike Pence. The second-best scenario is that we get President Tim Kaine." This was published a mere fortnight ago.

    "(T)he absurdity of this election: Clinton is just about the only Democrat who could lose to Trump, and Trump is certainly the only GOP candidate who could lose to Clinton."

    Current Betfair prices:

    Kaine 750-800
    Pence 220-800, so not much of a market

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    foxinsoxuk said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    taffys said:

    ''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''

    Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.

    the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
    It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
    There could be any number of shy voters, for a variety of reasons. If I was a Hillary voter in Kentucky then I would be shy, ditto a Trump supporter in DC.

    One way to look at this is to look at whether there has been an uptick in Blue Collar White Americans in swing states such as Ohio or NC. From what I have seen here I have seen no evidence (indeed in NC Democrats were registering faster than previous).

    Lets look at some facts rather than Brexiteer wet dreams (though I think Trump will be bad for Brexit Britain as the last thing we need is a trade war).

    It is not just registering to vote but actually bothering to get off the couch to vote and while NC is likely to be better for Clinton than Obama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan will likely be better for Trump than Romney.

    As for Brexit Britain the best result would be a Trump win and a Democratic congress, the worst result a Hillary win and a Democratic congress, then the UK really would be firmly at the back of the queue behind the EU and TPP in terms of getting any trade deal done
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Excellent policy by Mike - it's a betting site after all.

    Has anyone told the PB Morning Shift?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    edited September 2016
    williamglenn said:

    HYUFD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    SquareRoot said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    That would put Labour on36%.. really?
    I think it's +8% in Scotland, given it's The Herald?
    It is a GB wide poll. So it is an 8% bump GB wide
    With who as Leader? Owen Thingy? Miss Bucket? Eddie Izzard? Kermit the Frog? Bungle from Rainbow?
    No, a generic 'younger, fresher face' so essentially little help until after 2020, Smith and Balls did little better than Corbyn
    It did occur to me during Corbyn's speech that perhaps he should swap places with the man doing the signing.
    He could probably swap places with the hotel bar lavatory attendant and Labour would do no worse than Corbyn, maybe even better!
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    williamglenn said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    Sean_F said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    All the Americans at the conference in Gothenburg I have just come back from were convinced Trump will win and were very gloomy about it. I wonder whether resignation that he will win rather than determination to prevent him winning will be the order of the day come November. It could be a low turnout, even by US standards.

    Are these friends of all the Americans you told us about 4 years ago who said Romney was going to win?

    Sorry, that is unfair but narrow cliques of people such as those that attend a foreign conference are really not likely to be typical of anything very much.
    Southam was right about Brexit, though. I imagine both he, and the Americans, are very unhappy about the prospect of Trump winning. In truth it is awful, but the alternative is awful too.

    Trump does worry me. I don't think he's stable. And he is openly racist. That will have consequences. I just hope the Queen does not have to meet him. Let's keep it at the political level.

    Yeh, I think he's unhinged and a bigot. I think Clinton is dishonest, and will govern as far to the left as she possibly can. I'd probably vote Johnson if I were a US citizen.
    My view of Trump is similar to that of Steve Hilton. I don't know if he's truly bigoted or not, but he is definitely a shock jock who enjoys getting attention - the more negative and outrageous the better - and he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    If I were a US citizen, now, I'd vote Johnson. But, had I been born and brought up in America as a US citizen my whole life, I would probably now be drawn to Trump.

    I would certainly not vote for Clinton. The US political system needs anything but her.
    he's also a raving egomaniac whose behaviour is highly irresponsible. He is unpredictable, inconsistent and unstable.

    so President Boris
    "What's a Beko?"
    Ask Jim.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    edited September 2016
    Putin is playing hard ball in Syria now that the US elections are imminent and that Obama is weak and unwilling to take serious action, while Trump is making friendly noises.
    The Russians appear to be following their tactics in Chechen when they decided to win the battle by totally destroying cities, including the civilian population. Cities can always be rebuilt. Once you cleanse the population you can insert friendly immigrants.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
    Margin of error. Any of those polls post debate?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,782
    edited September 2016
    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Clinton has just moved from a 55.8% chance to 58.2% on 538 based on latest poll.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Seems a bit of a sharp move for one poll, a poll that doesn't have a rating on their site.
    I don't know what moved it. It happened about an hour ago. It is the "polls only forecast." It gives Clinton a 1.9% lead. I'm assuming a poll or polls moved it. What else could? Don't know which one.

    Edit: Probably the Reuters/IPSOS one that has just moved Clinton to a 2.9% national lead on RCP (up from 2.1%)
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.

    It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    foxinsoxuk said:

    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
    Margin of error. Any of those polls post debate?
    RCP has a 2.9% Clinton average lead nationally, Ohio still leans Trump, most likely even after Hillary's small post debate bounce
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Would OGH be saying the same if Clinton was using them to bolster her efforts? The editorial suggests not.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
    And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Barnesian said:

    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Clinton has just moved from a 55.8% chance to 58.2% on 538 based on latest poll.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Seems a bit of a sharp move for one poll, a poll that doesn't have a rating on their site.
    I don't know what moved it. It happened about an hour ago. It is the "polls only forecast." It gives Clinton a 1.9% lead. I'm assuming a poll or polls moved it. What else could? Don't know which one.

    Edit: Probably the Reuters/IPSOS one that has just moved Clinton to a 2.9% national lead on RCP (up from 2.1%)
    One of the characteristics of the monte-carlo system (like any Normal-based curve) is that the largest change in area under the curve (= greatest change in percentages) occurs near the centre i.e. at 50-50.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    HYUFD said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.

    It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
    The contradiction of a globalising Brexit is it's happening because of an anti globalising backlash. While I don't blame globalising Brexiters for ' not wasting a good crisis ' the contradiction is real. Broadly speaking people who wish we were in NAFTA are now cheering on a candidate who wants to tear up NAFTA.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,782
    weejonnie said:

    Barnesian said:

    RobD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Clinton has just moved from a 55.8% chance to 58.2% on 538 based on latest poll.

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    Seems a bit of a sharp move for one poll, a poll that doesn't have a rating on their site.
    I don't know what moved it. It happened about an hour ago. It is the "polls only forecast." It gives Clinton a 1.9% lead. I'm assuming a poll or polls moved it. What else could? Don't know which one.

    Edit: Probably the Reuters/IPSOS one that has just moved Clinton to a 2.9% national lead on RCP (up from 2.1%)
    One of the characteristics of the monte-carlo system (like any Normal-based curve) is that the largest change in area under the curve (= greatest change in percentages) occurs near the centre i.e. at 50-50.
    Good point.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
    Margin of error. Any of those polls post debate?
    RCP has a 2.9% Clinton average lead nationally, Ohio still leans Trump, most likely even after Hillary's small post debate bounce
    We don't know what the bounce will be - I don't think we have any polls 100% post debate. Voodoo polls probably reflect enthusiasm - but the most enthusiastic voter can only vote once (legally). Of course even the wealthiest Democrat can also only vote once (legally).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    Jobabob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
    They would have to win the membership first and preferably be a Marxist donkey!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    weejonnie said:

    HYUFD said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    In Ohio people who have not voted for 8 years are taken off the register:

    http://wkbn.com/2016/08/11/inactive-ohio-voters-could-be-removed-from-rolls/

    Those shy Trumpers had better be registering, but it seems not.

    Trump already has a 2% average lead in Ohio so does not need many shy Trumpers there
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5970.html
    And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
    Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,985
    perdix said:

    Putin is playing hard ball in Syria now that the US elections are imminent and that Obama is weak and unwilling to take serious action, while Trump is making friendly noises.
    The Russians appear to be following their tactics in Chechen when they decided to win the battle by totally destroying cities, including the civilian population. Cities can always be rebuilt. Once you cleanse the population you can insert friendly immigrants.

    Yep. The parallels with Chechnya are worrying.

    Still, even after the MH17 report today, there'll be some on here praising Putin.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2016
    weejonnie said:

    Would OGH be saying the same if Clinton was using them to bolster her efforts? The editorial suggests not.

    The editorial suggests the opposite.

    Good call Mike - these polls are garbage.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Candidate for England manager job in a few years?

    The man in charge of maintaining Buckingham Palace has been jailed for five years after he accepted more than £100,000 in bribes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37497808

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FPT Alistair said "Speedy was talking about success. Carter and Bush 1 were both 1 termers. Sad. Bush 2 had to rely on lawyers to secure the Election for him so laywer by proxy.

    "JFK, well, I don't think anyone would want their presidency to end that way.

    I have to say Speedy's thesis looks sound"

    Speedy actually said "every President since WW2 except Eisenhower and Reagan was a lawyer", which is demonstrably incorrect.

    As for his assertion that lawyers make more successful presidents, tricky dicky and Ford as lawyers hardly shine, meaning you have to count both Clinton and Obama's as successful presidencies (debatable) even to get to 50% successful for the lawyers.

    On the other side, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (even if cut short), Johnson and Reagan have legitimate claims to successful Presidencies.

    Not sure his thesis stands any test.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    The political effects of the devaluation ( good and bad ) will be a lagging indicator. But the devaluation doesn't seem to be going away. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/pound-set-for-longest-run-of-losses-since-1984-on-brexit-woes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,716
    edited September 2016
    YellowSubmarine said:

    HYUFD said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.

    It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
    The contradiction of a globalising Brexit is it's happening because of an anti globalising backlash. While I don't blame globalising Brexiters for ' not wasting a good crisis ' the contradiction is real. Broadly speaking people who wish we were in NAFTA are now cheering on a candidate who wants to tear up NAFTA.
    Some but most of those Brexiteers who back NAFTA in the UK would vote for Johnson in the US, a majority of those who voted against the EU would have few problems with the US tearing up NAFTA, especially working class Leave voters in the North and Midlands. That in the end may be the difference, my prediction is Hillary will win by less than 1% in the end but the Johnson + Trump voters will be comfortably more than the margin of Hillary's victory
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    "84% of Internet polls are just made up" - Abraham Lincoln.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.

    It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
    Congress has a Republican majority, and any scenario where Trump wins, that is likely to increase.

    http://www.270towin.com/2016-house-election/

    So a Trump restrained by a Democratic Congrees is not going to happen, though a Clinton Presidency restrained by a Republican Congress is likely.

    Worth noting that any Trump Trade war with the EU will also be against us as for at least the first two years of a Trump presidency we will be in the EU. That delay in A50 may cost us dearly...
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Good move OGH.
    I don't take any poll all that seriously, but these creatures you call "voodoo polls" are excrescences, very well consistent with Trump's carnival hawking ego(t)ism. I'm afraid they may influence a few people, in this case, Trump's direction. I wonder whether similar numbers might not be put off by them. By banning them here you make a contribution to common sense.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Candidate for England manager job in a few years?

    The man in charge of maintaining Buckingham Palace has been jailed for five years after he accepted more than £100,000 in bribes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37497808

    Say what you like about Big Sam, but he has a 100% win rate when in charge of Endland!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MTimT said:

    FPT Alistair said "Speedy was talking about success. Carter and Bush 1 were both 1 termers. Sad. Bush 2 had to rely on lawyers to secure the Election for him so laywer by proxy.

    "JFK, well, I don't think anyone would want their presidency to end that way.

    I have to say Speedy's thesis looks sound"

    Speedy actually said "every President since WW2 except Eisenhower and Reagan was a lawyer", which is demonstrably incorrect.

    As for his assertion that lawyers make more successful presidents, tricky dicky and Ford as lawyers hardly shine, meaning you have to count both Clinton and Obama's as successful presidencies (debatable) even to get to 50% successful for the lawyers.

    On the other side, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (even if cut short), Johnson and Reagan have legitimate claims to successful Presidencies.

    Not sure his thesis stands any test.

    I may have been less than serious.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Jobabob said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/BMGResearch/status/781195907672973312

    https://twitter.com/_katedevlin/status/781077880772190209

    Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
    Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.

    In any event, Corbyn's going nowhere.
This discussion has been closed.