Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The impact of the 1st debate on WH2016 & the prospects now
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The impact of the 1st debate on WH2016 & the prospects now for Corbyn: this week’s PB/Polling Matters TV show/podcast
After a big few days in both UK and US politics the PB/Polling Matters looks in detail at the impact of Corbyn’s re-election and where the Trump-Clinton battle stands now. How much importance should we attach to the instant post debate polling and in the UK is there any way that Corbyn can now move forward following his convincing leadership victory.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PhilHayYEP/status/781236721908416513
Now that's a seat I can see the Lib Dems regaining in that scenario.
Now large parts of Western London will have to be demolished to expand an unworkable airport.
I curse every Tory to get stuck at Heathrow for at least 8 hours waiting for their flight.
Observation: debate performance stats strong for Hillary, but tight on support for policies (Trump only 4% behind.)
Overall, this and other polls seem to be positive for Clinton - suggesting debate was more like a one goal win than the score draw I initially thought it was, based on reports - but Trump is certainly not out of this. The unthinkable remains a distinct possibility...
Step 1: go to your poll's website. Let's use http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/ as an example
Step 2: Look at the page source code. On my browser I can do this by right-click->"view page source", but your browser may be different
Step 3: find the code where the voting takes place. In the Time example it's immediately after the text "...controlled by people who want to vote."
Step 4: look at that code. In our example it looks like this below. I've replaced the chevrons with square brackets so you can see it:
[script type="text/javascript" src="//cdn.playbuzz.com/widget/feed.js"][[/script]
[div class="pb_feed" data-provider="WordPress 4.6.1-RC1-38499" data-key="time.com" data-tags="" data-game="//www.playbuzz.com/TIME/vote-now-who-won-the-first-clinton-trump-debate" data-game-info="false" data-comments="false" data-shares="false" data-recommend="false" data-links="" data-width="auto" data-height="auto" data-margin-top="150"][/div]
The "script" tag tells you where the Javascript is, the "div" tag (in this example!) envalues parameters the form will use.
Step 5: open up the javascript code. In our example put //cdn.playbuzz.com/widget/feed.js in your browser
Step 6: Identify the form in the code. For an example of a form see here: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_form.asp
At a guess it's somewhere in the code {http.overrideMimeType&&http.overrideMimeType("text/xml"),format=formatArg||"text",format=format.toLowerCase(),method=method||"GET",parameters=null,"POST"==method&&(parts=url.split("?"),url=parts[0],parameters=parts[1]),now="uid="+(new Date).getTime(),url+=url.indexOf("?")+1?"&":"?",url+=now;try{http.open(method,url,!0)}catch(e){return pb.debugLog("speed-exception",e),void 0}"POST"==method&&void 0!==http.setRequestHeader&&http.setRequestHeader("Content-type","application/x-www-form-urlencoded") but this is out of my wheelhouse.
Step 7: extract the form code and the parameters it needs.
Step 8: Write code to submit the form. See here for an example: http://www.javascript-coder.com/javascript-form/javascript-form-submit.phtml
Step 9: Wrap that code in a loop. See here for a loop: http://www.w3schools.com/js/js_loop_for.asp
Step 10: Run the loop code. Depending on the speed of your connection, you could submit approx 1-10K votes a second.
I kid, of course, the opposition is just using the tried and true 'time for a change' approach. Although given Cameron was able to win despite heading a government of 'austerity' and 'division' for five years, maybe Labour should push that, no, the Tories have changed, they're now even worse than Cameron.
Make it 7 polls for Clinton. The story is pretty consistent, even though they vary slightly in whether it's debate viewers, followers, etc. https://t.co/0Cpd6rHx69
And you could be waiting 8 hours stuck in traffic just outside Heathrow, while I'll be using Gatwick, ha.
Harold Godwinson
1 minute ago
So long as the people who voted Brexit suffer all the consequences I have no problem.
If anti-Brexiters suffer any harm there should be a redistribution of wealth from pro to anti Brexit areas.
In fact to be more exact the redistribution of wealth from anti to pro Brexit areas should be severely curtailed.
All very big infrastructure projects and all good for UK PLC (ex EU)
I don't count Echelon Insights because Pat Ruffini is suspect, and their only other poll was from months ago so we can't compare the situation before and after.
The other big problem is that she doesn't seem to have a reason to want to become president except for the nature of her genitals.
new NBC/Survey Monkey poll: 27% of Rs, 72% of independents, 96% of Ds say Trump lacks personality/temperament to serve as president
We are already seeing the seeds being planted for why the Tories will be ousted from power, we just don't know when.
Strategic mistakes take time to reveal the extent of the disaster, and we all know that those projects will end up in disaster.
Pretty nailed on comment 10 minutes in.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/1874162/fa-took-on-sam-allardyce-despite-warnings-from-the-sun-over-his-links-to-an-alleged-50k-bung-in-2009/
The precedents for politicians gaining power without having a plan of what they want to use the power for are not happy. Exhibit A: J. Gordon Brown.
Blocking multiple votes from the same IP generally isn't smart. There are lots of reasons why multiple individuals could share the same IP so you would be blocking valid votes. Cookies make more sense but won't stop anyone with technical knowledge that wants to cast multiple votes. They may, of course, have a throttle in place to stop one IP address registering lots of votes in a short space of time. I didn't check that.
"....Andy Burnham, insofar as you take what he says this week seriously"
It's better to have multiple smaller airports rather that a single large one just for reasons of traffic alone, not mentioning security.
Heathrow is a perfect example of an airport that has gotten too big to operate properly.
Constructing those large white elephant projects is something we used to joke about the Soviets (or even Mandelson with his Millenium Dome).
Now we can joke about the Tories squandering almost 100 billion pounds on 3 projects of dubious nature.
Then Mr Brown followed that up by decapitating all the tall poppies who might have been a threat to his position, and who carried the memory of moderate Labour philosophy.
Thus we now have a generation of devoted Labour people - MPs and members - who cannot articulate what their branch of Labour stands for. It's been taken for granted for so long that they cannot now remember what it was.
Hardly surprising they're helpless in the face of people like Mr Corbyn who does know what he wants Labour to stand for.
We'd all end up carrying around bog rolls instead of wallets. The sheets thereon would be of more utility and greater value than our bank notes.
(God, that dates me)
The only prosperous future for Brexit Britain may well be the free wheeling free trading capitalism. It is not what they are going to get though!
Leaverstan is going to find out fairly shortly that in a globalised world they are at the back of the queue (to coin a phrase).
Approving Heathrow will give the LibDems a 10% boost in a cluster of SW London/Thames Valley seats where they have a chance. Maidenhead is obviously safe but not so far from the affected areas that she's unaware.
Or it might be an Osborne-style trap to manoeuvre the other parties into an ultimately damaging position. I can't see it (neither Labour under Corbyn, nor the LibDems on 8%, need any manoeuvring) but I am no Master Of The Dark (Political) Arts.
I've discounted it as a vote-winning policy on its own - people who will benefit from Heathrow expansion largely already vote Conservative - but I can see it as a way to get more City donations to the Conservative Party. That does at least make some logical sense.
Or, and perhaps most likely, it may mean that May is ----ing terrified of Brexit and is bending over to appease (to borrow SeanT's immortal imagery) the coke-snorting bankers in any way possible because she believes the economy will go to hell in a handbasket if she doesn't.
Like John Reed covering the Russian Revolution.
Goodnight.
I understand most people near Heathrow are in favour due to the huge increase in jobs
suspect the majority of labour-esque folk (least those of a certain age) want a John Smith position. i.e. back to the 90s rather than bac to the 80s
back to the future 3 is rubbish, mind
https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/781229372447531008
(And to swing back to Labour's long term philosophical problems... they have two core voter blocks, one of which is massively relaxed about replacing the other with a nice clean efficient machine that won't bring *those* sorts of views into the house - that's a very difficult circle to square.)
Turkish Airlines and Emirates from Brum are good too, with two flights per day each and onwards connections to points East.
It is only when I fly to the States that I use Heathrow, because US immigration is so rubbish and prolonged.
HS2 is no good to me either. The nearest stop is a 45 minute drive from Leicester, while existing trains get me to London in 70 minutes or less. Another white Elephant.
"Worlds largest hub airport" and the Soviets had the worlds largest computer chip.
Size does not directly lead to better results, and Heathrow is already too large to operate properly.
You can build the world's largest airport but the traffic of people trying to go to and from the airport will still make it the world's worst airport from customer service.
And customer service in airports is the biggest problem with air travel, you already have to go through all those security checks and to battle with traffic to get to the airport in time, from a customer point of view airports are hell.
It is not something to aim for. We are better off as we are.
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html is the standard - but think of it as a population with computers and a population without.