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 » Initial WH2016 early voting analysis suggests that fewer Regis

SystemSystem Posts: 12,265
edited October 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Initial WH2016 early voting analysis suggests that fewer Registered Republicans are voting compared with 2012

The excellent US blog,InsightUS, is providing regular reports and analysis on early voting for the election which takes place four weeks today.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    1st
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,985
    edited October 2016
    3rd, which is the same as my importance in this household. :)
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,740
    edited October 2016
    FPT: I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead today is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    So how is her lead down by 7?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016
    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Plato excuse: They are sampling oodles more Dems.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,191
    Intriguing insight indeed, i thought the Republicans were supposed to be more enthusiastic this year?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    On topic

    Just to prove that "real pussies" don't like Donald.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/hilarious-moment-cat-furiously-attacks-donald-trump-on-screen/
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Its because all the Democrats are shy Trumpers. Obviously.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    MikeL said:

    FPT: I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead today is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    So how is her lead down by 7?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    when u look at the respondents that only POST debate you see Clinton has a lead of 7%.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,909
    ToryJim said:

    Intriguing insight indeed, i thought the Republicans were supposed to be more enthusiastic this year?

    It's probably precisely the Republicans who are normally the most enthusiastic who are the most uneasy about Trump.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    ToryJim said:

    Intriguing insight indeed, i thought the Republicans were supposed to be more enthusiastic this year?

    What is the score with Dem registered voters. 2012 was a pretty high turnout for the Dems?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    How would that work in reality? So promotions are now illegal? Dropping prices when you're quiet, negotiating deals with valued customers and so on are all impossible?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    nunu said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Plato excuse: They are sampling oodles more Dems.
    I've nearly finished a thread on why that's nonsense.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Who are InsightUS?

    Did they back the Red Lib Dems to see Ed home, or prove that phone polls meant that Remain would win?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Another crap performance from England's footballers.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,333
    Most boring match ever.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    nunu said:

    MikeL said:

    FPT: I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead today is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    So how is her lead down by 7?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    when u look at the respondents that only POST debate you see Clinton has a lead of 7%.
    Which is only a 2% swing.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    MikeL said:

    FPT: I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead today is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    4.6% margin of error on the latter.

    We'll really need till the end of the week to get much idea of the effect of the tapes+debate combo (especially on Sunday the SM poll comes out with a 1% MoE).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    Itv commentators really are a joke.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited October 2016
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    ToryJim said:

    Intriguing insight indeed, i thought the Republicans were supposed to be more enthusiastic this year?

    What is the score with Dem registered voters. 2012 was a pretty high turnout for the Dems?
    They are 7% higher than last time in this TYPE of voting. Which is a huge swing to the Dems. Remember Romney won this state by 2% last time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    edited October 2016
    Tragic

    Key government adviser says leaving EU customs union will cost UK £25bn

    Raoul Ruparel made the analysis prior to being appointed by David Davis to lend expertise on leaving the EU

    The British economy will be hit by a “permanent cost” of more than £25bn if it decides to withdraw from the EU customs union, the government’s new key adviser on Brexit has said.

    Raoul Ruparel, who has been hired by David Davis to provide expertise on the process of leaving the EU, said he believed there was no question over the UK staying inside Europe’s free trade bloc.

    But he admitted that leaving the customs union, inside which EU countries negotiate trade deals collectively and set common external tariffs, would reduce GDP by between 1 and 1.2% in the long term.

    Ruparel’s comments, made before he was appointed to the senior government position, could provide ammunition for Labour MPs who have challenged the government’s trade secretary, Liam Fox, to prove the benefits of such a move.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/government-adviser-leaving-eu-customs-union-uk-25bn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,385
    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    How would that work in reality? So promotions are now illegal? Dropping prices when you're quiet, negotiating deals with valued customers and so on are all impossible?
    Its all discrimination. Why should someone who dosent shop there regularly be discriminated against.

    Would certainly make life easier buying a rail ticket if common carrier was reinstated (it went in the 60s).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,985
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    That's interesting thanks. It had escaped my notice (stupidly!) that the common carrier act applied to people as well as freight.

    Most of the talk I've seen about it reflects how it affected freight traffic, and of the deleterious effect it had on the railways post-WWI. It's an interesting twist to consider how it might have affected he railways' attitude to passenger traffic.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    williamglenn said:

    ToryJim said:

    Intriguing insight indeed, i thought the Republicans were supposed to be more enthusiastic this year?

    It's probably precisely the Republicans who are normally the most enthusiastic who are the most uneasy about Trump.
    yes high turnout uni educated whites are turning away from him in droves, and Noth Carolina has higher than avreage number of those.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593

    Tonight's result was karma for that kit.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593

    Havent they 'boycotted' every set of World Cup Finals since 1978?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,783
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Well, Trump has been calling for his supporters to act as vigilante scrutineers to make sure [black] people don't commit electoral fraud. They can't do that if they're not at the polling stations. So this is obviously proof that UGE numbers of Republicans are going to obey Trump's call.

    [I'll bet that's not more unconvincing than the arguments the Trumpites come up with.]
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593

    Havent they 'boycotted' every set of World Cup Finals since 1978?
    No, by my reckoning they've qualified for at least 4 world cups since 1978
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    The Telegraph: Spend some of the millions from the aid budget on a new royal yacht Britannia, Tory MPs tell Government. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw-d-s9C8
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,777
    edited October 2016
    This is a big problem for the Republicans down ticket.

    If many Republicans decide to abstain because of Trump, and don't go out to vote, they'll lose votes in the House and Senate and for Governors..

    The wise strategy for the RNC is to say "If you can't vote for Trump, then hold your nose and vote for Clinton. But make sure you vote Republican down the ticket. Whatever you do, don't abstain and stay at home."

    I suspect, though this is a sensible strategy, it is a step too far for the RNC.

    Are there any Senate markets up yet?

    Edit I've found the Betfair market. Not very liquid at the moment. I must read the rules for a tie and regarding independents.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    JosiasJessop said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    That's interesting thanks. It had escaped my notice (stupidly!) that the common carrier act applied to people as well as freight.

    Most of the talk I've seen about it reflects how it affected freight traffic, and of the deleterious effect it had on the railways post-WWI. It's an interesting twist to consider how it might have affected he railways' attitude to passenger traffic.
    It rapidly stopped classist behaviour like only providing first class coaches on express trains etc. with third class coaches only provided on goods trains that stopped to shunt for ages at each station and took forever.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,909
    Isn't it about time for a Brexit British football team? Just say no to the sub-national boundaries beloved of federalists!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593

    Havent they 'boycotted' every set of World Cup Finals since 1978?
    1998!!!
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    chestnut said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Fascinating, I'm sure Breitbart or 4Chan will come up with an explanation for why this is actually good for Trump

    Who are InsightUS?

    Did they back the Red Lib Dems to see Ed home, or prove that phone polls meant that Remain would win?
    LEAVE had a lead in the avrege of all polls in the last three weeks.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tragic

    Key government adviser says leaving EU customs union will cost UK £25bn

    Raoul Ruparel made the analysis prior to being appointed by David Davis to lend expertise on leaving the EU

    The British economy will be hit by a “permanent cost” of more than £25bn if it decides to withdraw from the EU customs union, the government’s new key adviser on Brexit has said.

    Raoul Ruparel, who has been hired by David Davis to provide expertise on the process of leaving the EU, said he believed there was no question over the UK staying inside Europe’s free trade bloc.

    But he admitted that leaving the customs union, inside which EU countries negotiate trade deals collectively and set common external tariffs, would reduce GDP by between 1 and 1.2% in the long term.

    Ruparel’s comments, made before he was appointed to the senior government position, could provide ammunition for Labour MPs who have challenged the government’s trade secretary, Liam Fox, to prove the benefits of such a move.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/government-adviser-leaving-eu-customs-union-uk-25bn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    It was £66bn on the front of The Times this morning. We'll take a £41bn reduction in 24 hours....
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2016
    Philip_Thompson said:

    nunu said:

    MikeL said:

    FPT: I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead today is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    So how is her lead down by 7?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    when u look at the respondents that only POST debate you see Clinton has a lead of 7%.
    Which is only a 2% swing.
    NBC/WSJ

    Pre-Debate

    Hillary 52
    Trump 38

    After Debate, (changes compared with their Sept.16th poll)

    Hillary 49 -3 (+1)
    Trump 42 +4 (+1)

    Its the second lowest 2-way Hillary lead for a NBC/WSJ poll ever recorded since the GE campaign began (lowest was 5 points in July).

    They haven't released the full 4 way figures for the post-debate poll, but it's also 7 points.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,385
    edited October 2016
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/785937748008046593

    Havent they 'boycotted' every set of World Cup Finals since 1978?
    I'm guessing your Scottish football expertise is based on spending some time there and following a few Scotch twitter accounts.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited October 2016
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess.

    Absolutely - however, it's hard to conceive a Trump victory scenario that doesn't involve winning North Carolina. If he loses there, he's likely going to lose Colorado/Nevada, probably Florida also, quite possibly Ohio too, and the likes of Iowa come into play. He needs to win almost all of these - eg he could lose NV and get 269, or perhaps lose CO if he took NV+NH (270).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    Jobabob said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
    Closing off the Michigan route would perhaps explain Hillary giving it some unlikely attention....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    williamglenn said:

    Isn't it about time for a Brexit British football team? Just say no to the sub-national boundaries beloved of federalists!

    It was Brexit wot inspired our Team GB Olympic and Paralympic athletes to glory!
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    The Telegraph: The City exodus is already happening. It just doesn’t look like you expect it to. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwn8nG9C8
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,726
    edited October 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tragic

    Key government adviser says leaving EU customs union will cost UK £25bn

    Raoul Ruparel made the analysis prior to being appointed by David Davis to lend expertise on leaving the EU

    The British economy will be hit by a “permanent cost” of more than £25bn if it decides to withdraw from the EU customs union, the government’s new key adviser on Brexit has said.

    Raoul Ruparel, who has been hired by David Davis to provide expertise on the process of leaving the EU, said he believed there was no question over the UK staying inside Europe’s free trade bloc.

    But he admitted that leaving the customs union, inside which EU countries negotiate trade deals collectively and set common external tariffs, would reduce GDP by between 1 and 1.2% in the long term.

    Ruparel’s comments, made before he was appointed to the senior government position, could provide ammunition for Labour MPs who have challenged the government’s trade secretary, Liam Fox, to prove the benefits of such a move.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/government-adviser-leaving-eu-customs-union-uk-25bn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Yet More partial reporting by both the Guardian and TSE - who never misses an opportunity to talk down Brexit even for the most fatuous of reasons.

    The full article by Ruparel based on anlaysis by Open Europe is here

    http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    Note that both Norway and Switzerland are outside the Customs Union.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,128
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Itv commentators really are a joke.

    Bit like England really - they are poor and just boring
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    How would that work in reality? So promotions are now illegal? Dropping prices when you're quiet, negotiating deals with valued customers and so on are all impossible?
    Its all discrimination. Why should someone who dosent shop there regularly be discriminated against.

    Would certainly make life easier buying a rail ticket if common carrier was reinstated (it went in the 60s).
    Because someone who does shop there more regularly is a more valued customer. If I want to give a regular customer a discount then that seems quite reasonable.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Jobabob said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
    Well if we are returning back to the picture of Trump winning Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, N.Carolina, he still needs one more state.

    Wisconsin, Paul Ryan will stop him there.
    Colorado, unless he sounds more intellectual I don't think so.
    N.Hampshire, women don't like him, so no.
    Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is located there, so I don't think so.
    Michigan, could be, but large african american vote that is immovable.
    Maine, it splits it's electoral votes so Hillary will pick up one regardless.

    Hillary is afraid of Michigan and Pennsylvania being the state that puts Trump on top.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    MarqueeMark said:

    Jobabob said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
    Closing off the Michigan route would perhaps explain Hillary giving it some unlikely attention....
    Yes. Would make her visit up there today logical and shrewd. A tricky one.
  • glwglw Posts: 10,012
    MarqueeMark said:

    It was £66bn on the front of The Times this morning. We'll take a £41bn reduction in 24 hours....

    You beat me to it, nobody has a bloody clue do they?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,333
    edited October 2016
    @Mortimer on the idea of a technocracy, there are a few issues with it but I think the main one is that it trades long term stability for short term economic gain. A technocratic society will never be truly stable because it will require the suspension of democratic rights, rights which people will be willing to fight and die for. In the short term not being beholden to any form of ideology may work, but even that comes with its own set of issues. The technocrats will have an ideology which they may wish to impose on the public moving towards a dictatorship, it could lead to power struggles at the top, which again could lead to a dictatorship.

    Purely on economics it doesn't make sense to me either, the world's largest technocratic nation, China, has prospered by exporting deflation to the rest of the world. That's not something which could continue indefinitely (and it hasn't) so now they've moved onto a credit fuelled boom which looks a lot like our GFC of 2007-9. The technocrats will make poor decisions as well. The worst part is that given their unelected nature they would not be easy to remove either. Look at the poor decision making by the EU Commission as an example closer to home, anyone could see that the migrant quota system was a poor idea and really the Commission should have told Germany they are on their own, since it was their policy of "all welcome" which opened the floodgates for migrants. Eastern European countries want to sack the Commission for that and Northern European countries hold Juncker as the responsible party for Brexit, yet he is still there coming up with batshit ideas and policies.

    Technocratic government has too many downsides, both political and economic, plus it starts the gun on revolutionary action. Our democracy may have its flaws and is sometimes prone to an overreaction (see the PM on Brexit), but it is preferable to handing over the keys of Westminster to a bunch of unelected commissioners who are picked on who knows what criteria.

    I'm not sure The Economist is in a happy place at the moment. It's not a journal I read any more (long before Brexit tbh). If they are advocating technocratic government for western nations then it shows just how rotten they have become. Democracy has produced results they don't like so now they look to restrict democracy. Really, they should be looking at the underlying causes behind the dissatisfaction of so many lower and middle income people in developed nations. Let me put it this way, I'm at the top of the income scale and my personal income has doubled over the last three years. I don't believe economics is a zero sum game, but clearly the prosperity of people at the top of the income scale is causing issues at the lower end. Technocratic government which locks up dissenters (the only way to keep everyone in line) is not the answer.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2016
    glw said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    It was £66bn on the front of The Times this morning. We'll take a £41bn reduction in 24 hours....

    You beat me to it, nobody has a bloody clue do they?
    Of course no one has a clue.
    It's all arbitrary depending on their personal view.

    In reality it could be from 0 to 500 billion gazillion trillion.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,777
    Barnesian said:

    This is a big problem for the Republicans down ticket.

    If many Republicans decide to abstain because of Trump, and don't go out to vote, they'll lose votes in the House and Senate and for Governors..

    The wise strategy for the RNC is to say "If you can't vote for Trump, then hold your nose and vote for Clinton. But make sure you vote Republican down the ticket. Whatever you do, don't abstain and stay at home."

    I suspect, though this is a sensible strategy, it is a step too far for the RNC.

    Are there any Senate markets up yet?

    Edit I've found the Betfair market. Not very liquid at the moment. I must read the rules for a tie and regarding independents.

    The rules on the Senate say "A majority of seats requires either party to control at least 51 of the total 100 Senate seats as a result of the 34 seats to be contended at the 2016 US Senate elections. Independent or any other party Senators caucusing with either the Democrats or Republicans will NOT count for the purposes of this market."

    The Democrats have two independents who caucus with them (Sanders and King).

    So the Republicans have to get 51 seats,and the Democrats have to get 53 seats (including the independents). Otherwise it is "neither". "Neither" looks a good value bet to me.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    No one is surprised that Hammond is trying to prevent Brexit.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Speedy said:

    glw said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    It was £66bn on the front of The Times this morning. We'll take a £41bn reduction in 24 hours....

    You beat me to it, nobody has a bloody clue do they?
    Of course no one has a clue.
    It's all arbitrary depending on their personal view.

    In reality it could be from 0 to 500 billion gazillion trillion.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,909
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    Could Theresa May beat John Major's 45%->29% slide in the ICM poll as her government unravels?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    YellowSubmarine said:

    The Telegraph: The City exodus is already happening. It just doesn’t look like you expect it to. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwn8nG9C8

    That's a very good article.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,552
    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    Let me guess, Hammond.

    I think this rivalry between Hammond and May is going to cause a lot of trouble for the government.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    williamglenn said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    Could Theresa May beat John Major's 45%->29% slide in the ICM poll as her government unravels?
    Jeremy Corbyn is no John Smith
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    The National: UK risks losing billions in post-Brexit investment, warns EU development bank. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8JfQ_jE
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Speedy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    Let me guess, Hammond.

    I think this rivalry between Hammond and May is going to cause a lot of trouble for the government.
    Clarkson to the rescue?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    glw said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    It was £66bn on the front of The Times this morning. We'll take a £41bn reduction in 24 hours....

    You beat me to it, nobody has a bloody clue do they?
    They don't know the magnitude, but they know the sign.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/785949257719246848
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,909
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    williamglenn said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    Could Theresa May beat John Major's 45%->29% slide in the ICM poll as her government unravels?
    Jeremy Corbyn is no John Smith
    Nick Clegg's the man who can.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    OMG - Will Young has left Strictly.

    I guess he realises Ed Balls is on course to win, and why should he bother training for the next two months?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/785949952858001408
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Woe are the bankers. Britain's heart bleeds for them.
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    No doubt the three women economists that commented on the Sterling crash on BBC Ten will be dismissed as 'young girls down in London' by the Brexiteers
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    It's a sign of the Tories hegemony and Labour's irrelevance. The government has internalised the role of opposition just like New Labour in '97 to '05.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,552
    Speedy said:

    Jobabob said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
    Well if we are returning back to the picture of Trump winning Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, N.Carolina, he still needs one more state.

    Wisconsin, Paul Ryan will stop him there.
    Colorado, unless he sounds more intellectual I don't think so.
    N.Hampshire, women don't like him, so no.
    Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is located there, so I don't think so.
    Michigan, could be, but large african american vote that is immovable.
    Maine, it splits it's electoral votes so Hillary will pick up one regardless.

    Hillary is afraid of Michigan and Pennsylvania being the state that puts Trump on top.
    Eh? Ohio - Clinton is between 1 - 4 points ahead since September. FL - Clinton ahead on all but one poll on 538 for Sept/Oct.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Jobabob said:

    No doubt the three women economists that commented on the Sterling crash on BBC Ten will be dismissed as 'young girls down in London' by the Brexiteers

    Grieving remoaners.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2016
    rottenborough said:

    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.

    He can.

    It's not very likely, though.

    He has perhaps a 10-15% chance.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,554
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    Tory conference announcements dropping faster than the pound against the dollar..
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,552
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    OMG - Will Young has left Strictly.

    I guess he realises Ed Balls is on course to win, and why should he bother training for the next two months?

    :+1:
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    rottenborough said:

    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.

    I'm trying to work out whether 9/2 in a two horse race is value.
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 185
    edited October 2016
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tragic

    Key government adviser says leaving EU customs union will cost UK £25bn

    Raoul Ruparel made the analysis prior to being appointed by David Davis to lend expertise on leaving the EU

    The British economy will be hit by a “permanent cost” of more than £25bn if it decides to withdraw from the EU customs union, the government’s new key adviser on Brexit has said.

    Raoul Ruparel, who has been hired by David Davis to provide expertise on the process of leaving the EU, said he believed there was no question over the UK staying inside Europe’s free trade bloc.

    But he admitted that leaving the customs union, inside which EU countries negotiate trade deals collectively and set common external tariffs, would reduce GDP by between 1 and 1.2% in the long term.

    Ruparel’s comments, made before he was appointed to the senior government position, could provide ammunition for Labour MPs who have challenged the government’s trade secretary, Liam Fox, to prove the benefits of such a move.

    Yet More partial reporting by both the Guardian and TSE - who never misses an opportunity to talk down Brexit even for the most fatuous of reasons.
    No fatuous reasons required. No one with more than a few brain cells should have believed that Brexit would be anything other than financially disastrous for this country. I accept arguments like we will get freedom but then "freedom's just another word when there's nothing left to lose" and that isn't the case here for the majority living here. I hope that sooner rather than later the older generation, of which I am one, suffer the financial pain that is being inflicted on the majority. So we are set to lose between £25bn and £66bn per year? Take it off pensioners now, scrap the triple lock and make those who voted Leave appreciate what they have inflicted on us.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/785949257719246848

    Mike Smithson is a pound-shop Lord Ashdown

    *runs and hides*
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    YellowSubmarine said:

    The National: UK risks losing billions in post-Brexit investment, warns EU development bank. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8JfQ_jE

    On the other hand, that's a silly article. Who cares if, for policy reasons, the EIB invests in the UK or not? There's plenty of dosh sloshing around the world looking for good projects to fund, and much of it is sloshing through London. The problem isn't finding people who want to fund things, it's finding projects worth funding.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rottenborough said:

    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.

    I always give him a 10% chance to win, lets see.

    There is talk that the democrats are due for another panic with the polls next week.

    And there is talk that they will release another tape sometime between the 15th and election day, though if it's as dull as this tape released today then Trump would be very lucky:

    http://extratv.com/2016/10/11/what-you-didnt-see-when-donald-trump-made-his-days-of-our-lives-cameo/
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Speedy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    No one is surprised that Hammond is trying to prevent Brexit.
    As he is Chancellor and therefore guardian of the economy he is entitled to fight his corner, wouldn't you say?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,750
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

    Maybe if that approach had been taken with businesses providing services like B&B instead of the legislation protecting designated -ism victims it would have been simpler?
    Even before the RRA, at common law, you could not deny someone accommodation without "reasonable cause". Hence, Learie Constantine could successfully sue the Imperial Hotel for turning him down because he was black.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,552
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/785949257719246848

    Mike Smithson is a pound-shop Lord Ashdown

    *runs and hides*
    Osborne - 12s at BF for next party leader. Cassandra comes in from the cold...
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    rottenborough said:

    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.

    Yes, he can win IMO. I'd put his chances at about 20%.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    It was a silly tokenistic policy anyhow. Much like May's little gesture to Grammar Schools whose impact will be minuscule, or Brexit is Brexit. which means.......????

    May could quickly prove to have the substance of an ice lolly on a hot summer's day.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,909
    Jobabob said:

    Speedy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    David Davis accuses the Treasury of sabotaging the Brexit talks according to the front page of tomorrow's Telegraph

    No one is surprised that Hammond is trying to prevent Brexit.
    As he is Chancellor and therefore guardian of the economy he is entitled to fight his corner, wouldn't you say?
    More than entitled - it's his duty. If a policy, no matter how totemic, is unaffordable, he does not have the right to remain silent.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,783
    Hammond - a serious, grown-up man who has done his time in the real world - must look across the cabinet table at the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson and think WTF. I don't like his politics but I thank God he is there to at least try to prevent the utter mediocrities taking over the asylum.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    David Davis has accused Treasury officials of trying to "undermine" Brexit negotiations as part of a "desperate strategy" to keep Britain in the Single Market."

    "Whitehall sources said that the leaked papers are part of an ongoing "war" between Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Brexit ministers including Mr Davis, Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, and Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary."

    "A senior Treasury official yesterday launched a direct attack on on Dr Fox: "Liam is the one who needs to watch his back. Of him and Philip Hammond, I know which is more sackable, and it's not the chancellor."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/david-davis-accuses-treasury-officials-of-trying-to-undermine-br/
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    tyson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    It was a silly tokenistic policy anyhow. Much like May's little gesture to Grammar Schools whose impact will be minuscule, or Brexit is Brexit. which means.......????

    May could quickly prove to have the substance of an ice lolly on a hot summer's day.
    She's a pound shop Gordon Brown
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,403
    Jobabob said:

    rottenborough said:

    Anybody left thinking Trump can win this? It's over.

    I'm trying to work out whether 9/2 in a two horse race is value.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqdNe8u-Jsg
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Speedy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Huzzah for the cabinet and putting Red Theresa in her place.

    Senior cabinet ministers have rebelled against Theresa May’s plan to put workers on company boards, with one predicting that “it is not going to happen”

    https://www.ft.com/content/fbcc1bc6-8f0b-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923

    Let me guess, Hammond.

    I think this rivalry between Hammond and May is going to cause a lot of trouble for the government.
    Hammond is always captured by his civil servants, just look at his role at the FO.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    SouthamObserver said:

    Hammond - a serious, grown-up man who has done his time in the real world - must look across the cabinet table at the likes of Fox, Davis and Johnson and think WTF. I don't like his politics but I thank God he is there to at least try to prevent the utter mediocrities taking over the asylum.

    No Chancellor is going to give up billions of pounds in tax revenue without a fight.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2016
    rottenborough said:

    Speedy said:

    Jobabob said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    On topic: As Mike says, it's only one state, and the significance of the data is hard to assess. However, it is compatible with other polling and anecdotal data; Romney won NC by 2% in 2012, whereas the 538 'polls plus' central forecast is a Hillary win by 2.5%. All the other forecasters who express a view agree she's ahead in the state:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

    (See the table of forecasts about half-way down).

    It's actually quite hard to find any positive news for Trump over the past couple of weeks. Time to look closely at the ECV market, methinks.

    Yes, the usual sound analysis from Richard.

    On the one hand, the 9/2 on Trump (BetStars) seems great value - and I have been on the brink of taking it twice tonight thanks to a combination of Tyson and Jonathan fretting and a dull game on the telly.

    And yet and yet. Where is Trump's path? I think it's unlikely he wins PA. Which means he needs CO. It just looks out of reach for him there. So Michigan? Maybe. But maybe not.
    Well if we are returning back to the picture of Trump winning Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, N.Carolina, he still needs one more state.

    Wisconsin, Paul Ryan will stop him there.
    Colorado, unless he sounds more intellectual I don't think so.
    N.Hampshire, women don't like him, so no.
    Pennsylvania, Philadelphia is located there, so I don't think so.
    Michigan, could be, but large african american vote that is immovable.
    Maine, it splits it's electoral votes so Hillary will pick up one regardless.

    Hillary is afraid of Michigan and Pennsylvania being the state that puts Trump on top.
    Eh? Ohio - Clinton is between 1 - 4 points ahead since September. FL - Clinton ahead on all but one poll on 538 for Sept/Oct.
    Trump was leading in Ohio until the tape came out, so probably he is leading in Ohio again.
    Trump was also leading in Florida until about the 1st debate.

    So I think we are heading back towards the previous status, where Trump is losing by 3-5% nationally.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    The National: UK risks losing billions in post-Brexit investment, warns EU development bank. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw8JfQ_jE

    On the other hand, that's a silly article. Who cares if, for policy reasons, the EIB invests in the UK or not? There's plenty of dosh sloshing around the world looking for good projects to fund, and much of it is sloshing through London. The problem isn't finding people who want to fund things, it's finding projects worth funding.
    Indeed there is no shortage of money. Indeed the UK share capital in the EIB s bigger than the land it receives from it. The question is whether any non EU actor in the UK will take over the role of investing in this sort of stuff ? The EIB role in UK is easierly replicable. But will it be replicated ?
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Another mess left by Osborne.

    "George Osborne's pension reforms will backfire and end up costing the taxpayer billions of pounds more every year as people stop saving for their retirement, the official Treasury watchdog has warned.
    The Office for Budget Responsibility said the removal of tax relief on pensions for higher earners - billed as a move to save money - will ultimately end up costing the Exchequer £5 billion a year."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/governments-draconian-pension-reforms-have-backfired-experts-war/
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Ari Berman ‏@AriBerman 4h4 hours ago

    Indian-American woman, a US citizen since 8, told she must spend $345 for naturalization papers to vote in Wisconsin https://www.thenation.com/article/scott-walker-says-wisconsins-voter-id-law-is-working-just-fine-its-not/ …
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2016
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    David Davis has accused Treasury officials of trying to "undermine" Brexit negotiations as part of a "desperate strategy" to keep Britain in the Single Market."

    "Whitehall sources said that the leaked papers are part of an ongoing "war" between Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Brexit ministers including Mr Davis, Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, and Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary."

    "A senior Treasury official yesterday launched a direct attack on on Dr Fox: "Liam is the one who needs to watch his back. Of him and Philip Hammond, I know which is more sackable, and it's not the chancellor."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/david-davis-accuses-treasury-officials-of-trying-to-undermine-br/

    Give it time and Hammond would be sacked on his first budget.

    The question is which MP will replace Hammond as Chancellor?
This discussion has been closed.