Though if it can only be one I'd go with Heathrow. I could just about stomach heading down to LHR for a particularly good holiday deal, but Gatwick is another hour on top for travelling misery.
"Though if it can only be one" - why would that be if there's no extra demand on public funding?
Any expansion of any airport will require public funding. The airport owners finance work inside the perimeter but changes/additions to the road network and other infrastructure outside it is on the the taxpayer. Heathrow will cost us three times the amount of a second runway at Gatwick. Though I can't off the top of my head remember the actual figures we are talking about multiple billions.
On top of that the disruption that will be caused to an already overloaded motorway system (the M25 section from the M3 round to the M40 is already gummed up for most of the daylight hours) will impose costs on many, many businesses that have nothing to do with the airport, and for several years.
The costs of expanding Heathrow will be enormous and for what? So that the UK can play in the continuation of the dubious Hub and Spoke model of air travel? As Mr Sandpit mentioned up thread, point to point is taking over. I am sure it will happen but I am not convinced we need it or that the business case really holds up.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Though if it can only be one I'd go with Heathrow. I could just about stomach heading down to LHR for a particularly good holiday deal, but Gatwick is another hour on top for travelling misery.
"Though if it can only be one" - why would that be if there's no extra demand on public funding?
Any expansion of any airport will require public funding. The airport owners finance work inside the perimeter but changes/additions to the road network and other infrastructure outside it is on the the taxpayer. Heathrow will cost us three times the amount of a second runway at Gatwick. Though I can't off the top of my head remember the actual figures we are talking about multiple billions.
On top of that the disruption that will be caused to an already overloaded motorway system (the M25 section from the M3 round to the M40 is already gummed up for most of the daylight hours) will impose costs on many, many businesses that have nothing to do with the airport, and for several years.
The costs of expanding Heathrow will be enormous and for what? So that the UK can play in the continuation of the dubious Hub and Spoke model of air travel? As Mr Sandpit mentioned up thread, point to point is taking over. I am sure it will happen but I am not convinced we need it or that the business case really holds up.
Point to point still requires airlines to fill up planes of around 300 people to a minimum 85% capacity to work. The chances that there are enough people in London that want to fly to and from Chengdu everyday to warrant a direct link is extremely low, if BA use a One World codeshare to bring in passengers from US east coast the traffic might just be enough to warrant a direct daily connection. Point to point will eventually take over for more popular flights, but for provincial destinations hub and spoke will still be necessary. There just isn't enough domestic traffic to make daily flights to out of the way places.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
@bbclaurak: So, it seems done (at last!) Source tells me Heathrow did get the nod in committee this morning - No 10 won't confirm or deny, cabinet now
Will Boris do a Hezza? Storm out of Cabinet and resign?
Not a chance.
More likely "I didn't give a cr@p about Heathrow but needed the anti-Heathrow vote in my coalition to beat Ken4Mayor" "I spoke in cabinet strongly against Heathrow, but sadly the decision went against me, and I must now with a heavy heart be bound by the collective responsibility of the cabinet"
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Let's stay in so we can make a deal with Canada instead.
There's talks and there's "talks", that's the whole point. We're limited in our ability to do a deal too.
Well quite, the negotiations will continue and probably all the detail will get thrashed out in sub rosa meetings and informal contacts, potentially all the way to a draft treaty. After BrExit comes into force there will be a brief series of official meetings in which a remarkable meeting of minds will seem to have taken place and a deal will be done within a small number of months. Will it look fishy ? Sure! It it actionable ? No chance.
Australia’s trade minister Steven Ciobo has suggested Australia may scale back plans to secure a free trade deal with the European Union following the collapse of a European trade deal with Canada.
Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Let's stay in so we can make a deal with Canada instead.
There's talks and there's "talks", that's the whole point. We're limited in our ability to do a deal too.
Well quite, the negotiations will continue and probably all the detail will get thrashed out in sub rosa meetings and informal contacts, potentially all the way to a draft treaty. After BrExit comes into force there will be a brief series of official meetings in which a remarkable meeting of minds will seem to have taken place and a deal will be done within a small number of months. Will it look fishy ? Sure! It it actionable ? No chance.
What even is the enforcement mechanism? With the ECJ kick us out of the EU?
Miss Plato, I think that audio explains why Trump still has appeal for many people.
Whilst we're all wary of the Corbyn rally effect - to give the scale of the difference since August > Trump rally attendance 516k vs Hillary 31.5k.
It's enormous - c25k for last night in Florida, stadia packed to the rafters with bigger crowds than some NFL games. There's no need to exaggerate the numbers - there's panning shots of them all live.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.
Miss Plato, I think that audio explains why Trump still has appeal for many people.
Whilst we're all wary of the Corbyn rally effect - to give the scale of the difference since August > Trump rally attendance 516k vs Hillary 31.5k.
It's enormous - c25k for last night in Florida, stadia packed to the rafters with bigger crowds than some NFL games. There's no need to exaggerate the numbers - there's panning shots of them all live.
Average attendance for the Miami Dolphins last season, 67,193. But that's not the point, it's not the 25,000 in the stadium you have worry about, it's the 19,000,000 who aren't.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Absolute rubbish. I think people whining about oversamples do not understand polling.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
Brexit doesn't have much going for it, but an informal alliance of the UK, Canada and Australia should be very doable. Similar, somewhat isolated (newly so in the case of the UK) Anglo Saxon origin countries with ambitions that stretch beyond their shores.
It can't be an accident - but today I'm getting a load of tweets under the meme #TheHoodForTrump
It's all video of Blacks and Hispanics - inc celebrity endorsements from 50 Cents et al. I've seen a few big attitude videos before - but nothing like this.
Greg Hilliard As a Black Man from the Streets, Im trying EVERYTHING to get this mesage VIRAL. Please share this
Germany ignored the Fiscal Compact (effectively green-lighting the rest of the eurozone to do so), France breached EU law by banning imports of our beef...maybe when it comes to trade negotiations with third parties we shouldn't let ourselves be so bound by the rules.
What's the worst they could do?
Chuck us out?
Mr Juncker will write a very strongly worded letter to Mrs May. And er... Lots of lawyers, lefties and bureaucrats will be very cross.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
All it tells you is that historically the Dems have been interested in providing samples which pander to their prefered demographic. Human nature is that people tend to repeat themselves, especially if they perceive that it works and they get away with it. That is a factor to be aware of when placing you money. Nothing more, nothing less.
I still think Hillary will win, I am dubious it will be by a landslide.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Brexit doesn't have much going for it, but an informal alliance of the UK, Canada and Australia should be very doable. Similar, somewhat isolated (newly so in the case of the UK) Anglo Saxon origin countries with ambitions that stretch beyond their shores.
And already linked via 'Five Eyes'......no wonder Mrs May keeps stressing the importance of security cooperation with our European neighbours......IIRC the Belgian Police said they got more info from British sources than they did their own Secret Service after the Paris attacks.....
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Absolute rubbish. I think people whining about oversamples do not understand polling.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
Can you explain in words of one syllable why oversampling is bad. Surely the larger the sample, the better the result? The totals are adjusted to match the electorate whatever the sample mix happens to be.
For example: The article advises oversampling hispanics in some regions to "maximise what we get out of the media polling". Surely getting the most out of polling (by, say, understanding a crucial demographic in more detail) is the whole point of it!
Update on the ECV probability distributions of the 538 and HuffPost election models (see my posts yesterday for more details):
Clinton Bands 538 Huff
================================
Under 250 9.35% 1.18%
250-259 1.98% 0.87%
260-269 2.59% 1.31%
270-279 3.90% 2.42%
280-289 3.36% 2.47%
290-299 3.69% 4.19%
300-309 4.50% 6.24%
310-319 5.23% 6.50%
320-329 5.91% 8.09%
330-339 5.47% 8.86%
340-349 7.43% 19.04%
350-359 8.22% 16.84%
360-369 7.41% 7.70%
370-379 6.18% 5.21%
380-389 4.43% 2.88%
390-399 3.38% 2.30%
400 or over 16.99% 3.91%
================================
Prob Clinton win 86.09% 96.64%
Implied fair value for spreads markets:
Clinton ECVs 339.4 339.0
Clinton 270-up 75.4 69.7
Clinton 300-up 51.3 41.9
Clinton 330-up 31.0 18.6
Trump 270-up 5.9 0.6
Trump 300-up 2.8 0.1
Trump 330-up 1.2 0.0
Nate Silver isn't sure is he.
His model should close down as we approach the election. The fact it doesn't suggests less maths and more people input. I think the HuffPo is slightly the opposite, sometimes we discover a black swan.
It can't be an accident - but today I'm getting a load of tweets under the meme #TheHoodForTrump
It's all video of Blacks and Hispanics - inc celebrity endorsements from 50 Cents et al. I've seen a few big attitude videos before - but nothing like this.
Greg Hilliard As a Black Man from the Streets, Im trying EVERYTHING to get this mesage VIRAL. Please share this
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Clinton's lead is so clear cut though that the pollsters wouldn't just have to be "wrong" for Trump to win they'd have to have a complete and utter catastrophe to the point where they might as well just give up and go home.
It would be the polling disaster to end all polling disasters... On a par with that Populus "Eve Of Referendum" poll giving REMAIN a 10% lead!
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
It's more likely that the Commission has sent a message to Australia saying that if they enter into talks with the UK then any talks with the EU will get off to a bad start. Given how poorly CETA is going, I doubt this will make much difference in the end.
He certainly has a very fat tail to his distribution (on both sides) compared with everyone else. You probably saw the earlier link to his article explaining why:
My own view is that he's over-doing it. He has a 4.2% chance of Hillary getting over 450 ECVs. Is that really a 23-1 shot?
Edit: I agree with @TheWhiteRabbit that the Huff model (and also the NYT and Princeton models) are under-estimating the chances of outlier results, but I think Nate is over-estimating them.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Absolute rubbish. I think people whining about oversamples do not understand polling.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
Can you explain in words of one syllable why oversampling is bad. Surely the larger the sample, the better the result? The totals are adjusted to match the electorate whatever the sample mix happens to be.
For example: The article advises oversampling hispanics in some regions to "maximise what we get out of the media polling". Surely getting the most out of polling (by, say, understanding a crucial demographic in more detail) is the whole point of it!
Or are you just going to call me a fool, too?
Try writing that post in words of one syllable if you're going to challenge someone else to. Such a stupid phrase.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps the EU has applied pressure to Oz. They could still be dragged into any court issue even if they are not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
Also, playing nice with large trading blocs is the diplomatic thing to do, regardless of the strict legalities of a particular issue!!
Basically, but in a post-CETA failure world the EU will matter a lot less in global trade terms. If the EU can't get CETA through in the next year or so they may as well close up shop to the outside world.
I can't quite believe it has taken this long to emerge, but you are welcome to the birth of a new PB meme that will be hated even more than oh, wait...
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Clinton's lead is so clear cut though that the pollsters wouldn't just have to be "wrong" for Trump to win they'd have to have a complete and utter catastrophe to the point where they might as well just give up and go home.
It would be the polling disaster to end all polling disasters... On a par with that Populus "Eve Of Referendum" poll giving REMAIN a 10% lead!
It's a good job that the polls have been so reliable recently then.
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Anthony Wells was quite interesting on this yesterday.
TL;DR - polling wasn't that wrong on the EURef, but the media ignored it. It was wrong on GE2015 due to sample error. It could be wrong on WH2016 but 'could be' =/= 'is'.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
There's two parts to balancing polling, sampling and weighting. Sampling is who you talk to, weighting is how much you pay attention to their responses (so for example if your sample's male-female ratio is out of whack you weight it to even it out).
Polls can look at a lot of things, or rather you can get one dataset of responses and draw several bits of info from it.
If you're doing a representative poll anyway, then you could also as part of that get information on what a particular group is doing. But you need a decent sample size for that group. So you ask the pollster to oversample group x while they're doing their phone calls.
At the end you have a dataset with enough of group x responses to analyse that group on its own, then for your representative poll you downweight their responses back in line with the demographics.
It's a way of getting more info by using overlapping datasets for separate analyses.
I can't quite believe it has taken this long to emerge, but you are welcome to the birth of a new PB meme that will be hated even more than oh, wait...
I can't quite believe it has taken this long to emerge, but you are welcome to the birth of a new PB meme that will be hated even more than oh, wait...
I am proud to present...
BrWRECKSit !!!
How AWESOME is that?
Channeling Roy Orbison and Jackie Wilson - How about BrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrWRECKSit?
I can't quite believe it has taken this long to emerge, but you are welcome to the birth of a new PB meme that will be hated even more than oh, wait...
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Anthony Wells was quite interesting on this yesterday.
TL;DR - polling wasn't that wrong on the EURef, but the media ignored it. It was wrong on GE2015 due to sample error. It could be wrong on WH2016 but 'could be' =/= 'is'.
That's interesting. The samples used by the one's with Trump in a better position seem to be wrong ( For example, weighing that one black Trump voter * 30 in the LA times poll). We will see in 2 weeks soon, but I repeat, the polls look bad overall for Trump, the ground game is non-existent, the campaign aren't acting like they are winning ( Conway's tweet and Pence having to go to Utrah for example) and early voting seems to slightly favour the Dems.
its not a sure thing, but in terms of likelihood, Clinton is the massive favourite.
Ed Stone and Pink Bus might be 2 problems for Labour, but are the Tories also be lined up for fines?
The pink bus was kosher, it seems:
Labour’s infamous pink bus, which toured the country speaking to female voters, was also investigated by the commission, which found that all its spend was in order.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
It does sound odd. I suppose if the UK is bound by those laws, Australia wouldn't have anyone competent to negotiate with. More importantly, and I think this is the real reason for delay, Australia will want good arrangements from their point of view with both the rEU and the UK. They will want to know how the post-Brexit settlement pans out before committing themselves, I suspect. For instance, their main trading interest for the UK deal is selling Australian services to us. Depending on what the UK gets from the EU in terms of services that will inform what they want from us.
I can't quite believe it has taken this long to emerge, but you are welcome to the birth of a new PB meme that will be hated even more than oh, wait...
I am proud to present...
BrWRECKSit !!!
How AWESOME is that?
Sounds lisping and silly, appropriately.
He'll cwy and cwy and cwy until the meanie bwecksit people say they love the EU!
Unusually, over the past 24 hours the number of ECVs forecast by Sporting and by Nate Silver for each of the two candidates have moved in OPPOSITE directions:
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Pollsters are rapidly heading for the gutter of public disrepute to join journalists, ad men, lawyers, and professional politicians.
I think you've just listed all the pb.com readership!
What I find touching is that PB reverts to polling-is-almost-infallible. It's been wrong many times and still it's used as some Delphic data source.
Anthony Wells was quite interesting on this yesterday.
TL;DR - polling wasn't that wrong on the EURef, but the media ignored it. It was wrong on GE2015 due to sample error. It could be wrong on WH2016 but 'could be' =/= 'is'.
That's interesting. The samples used by the one's with Trump in a better position seem to be wrong ( For example, weighing that one black Trump voter * 30 in the LA times poll). We will see in 2 weeks soon, but I repeat, the polls look bad overall for Trump, the ground game is non-existent, the campaign aren't acting like they are winning ( Conway's tweet and Pence having to go to Utrah for example) and early voting seems to slightly favour the Dems.
its not a sure thing, but in terms of likelihood, Clinton is the massive favourite.
Agree - the sampling error line would be more potent if there were evidence of a Trump ground game to register and motivate these voters. Who knows, there could be enough of them, registered and slipping under the radar, but probably not.
There's two parts to balancing polling, sampling and weighting. Sampling is who you talk to, weighting is how much you pay attention to their responses (so for example if your sample's male-female ratio is out of whack you weight it to even it out).
Polls can look at a lot of things, or rather you can get one dataset of responses and draw several bits of info from it.
If you're doing a representative poll anyway, then you could also as part of that get information on what a particular group is doing. But you need a decent sample size for that group. So you ask the pollster to oversample group x while they're doing their phone calls.
At the end you have a dataset with enough of group x responses to analyse that group on its own, then for your representative poll you downweight their responses back in line with the demographics.
It's a way of getting more info by using overlapping datasets for separate analyses.
I don't disagree with any of that, but the panel survey experience from 2015 has shown us that you can't realistically deskew an unrepresentative sample, especially given how rubbish people seem to be at recalling who they voted for last time around so past-vote weighting seems precarious at best. Also if you have a biased sample you have to be able to deskew it on all the factors that bias that sample, and you don't know what most of those are (particularly the case with political polling which is largely self-selected, and you dont know why that person chose to take part in your survey - how do you control for "political obsessiveness" for example)
Also if one were a "progressive" polling and research organisation looking to ramp your prefered candidate, oversampling demographics known to be sympathetic to your candidate and then not controlling for that demographic (eg, weighting by race) would give you the sort of result you wanted whilst looking innocuous.
Unusually, over the past 24 hours the number of ECVs forecast by Sporting and by Nate Silver for each of the two candidates have moved in OPPOSITE directions:
POTUS Countdown (24 hr changes)
Sporting Index Mid-Spreads:
Clinton 330 (+5) Trump 207 (-6)
538.com Predictions:
Clinton 339 (-2) Trump 198 (+2)
Do either of them actually know what's happening?
Not sure, I've happily done my dealing on the spreads though - pleasing when Spreadex and SPIN take somewhat opposing views. A nice potential £90 free McMullin bonus too.
How very odd. It may or may not be unlawful for the UK, in what way is Australia bound by the provisions of the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties ?
Perhaps they are bound by WTO agreements not to do separate deals with EU members?
Well yeah, nobody is going to "sign on the dotted line" until we leave... But we're really just talking about having regular chats over tea and biscuits?
It's in the Podesta Emails that the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples and saying that the election was already over. And it's happening in real time.
Absolute rubbish. I think people whining about oversamples do not understand polling.
Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool...
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
Can you explain in words of one syllable why oversampling is bad. Surely the larger the sample, the better the result? The totals are adjusted to match the electorate whatever the sample mix happens to be.
For example: The article advises oversampling hispanics in some regions to "maximise what we get out of the media polling". Surely getting the most out of polling (by, say, understanding a crucial demographic in more detail) is the whole point of it!
Or are you just going to call me a fool, too?
Try writing that post in words of one syllable if you're going to challenge someone else to. Such a stupid phrase.
As a fool would know, the phrase means "to say in a way that is a cinch to get".
Use of that phrase is a way to get that thought in your thick head.
Comments
http://matthewfharris.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/leaving-liberal-democrats.html
http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/lib-dems-tonges-jewish-power-article-not-anti-semitic/
LOL
On top of that the disruption that will be caused to an already overloaded motorway system (the M25 section from the M3 round to the M40 is already gummed up for most of the daylight hours) will impose costs on many, many businesses that have nothing to do with the airport, and for several years.
The costs of expanding Heathrow will be enormous and for what? So that the UK can play in the continuation of the dubious Hub and Spoke model of air travel? As Mr Sandpit mentioned up thread, point to point is taking over. I am sure it will happen but I am not convinced we need it or that the business case really holds up.
http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-up-2-points-nationwide-while-clinton-campaigns-as-if-the-race-is-already-won-ibdtipp-poll/
Jared Wyand
If you make this go viral, Trump will win. It's 4 minutes that makes the choice in this election crystal clear.
#EarlyVoting https://t.co/UOgqSfet6a
Mail: Rep: 554,476 : Dem: 523,046
Early: Rep: 99,437 : Dem : 114,595
Thus still a narrow Rep Lead.
No affiliation: 207,230 by Mail, 36,694 voted early.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wzjRwNUQDRU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37760187?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
More likely "I didn't give a cr@p about Heathrow but needed the anti-Heathrow vote in my coalition to beat Ken4Mayor" "I spoke in cabinet strongly against Heathrow, but sadly the decision went against me, and I must now with a heavy heart be bound by the collective responsibility of the cabinet"
https://twitter.com/AllieRenison/status/790843662443941890
Australia’s trade minister Steven Ciobo has suggested Australia may scale back plans to secure a free trade deal with the European Union following the collapse of a European trade deal with Canada.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/brexit-australia-to-scale-back-plans-for-free-trade-deals-with-uk-eu/news-story/fcd40d43ee0b7dcd66709792718e3b90
It's enormous - c25k for last night in Florida, stadia packed to the rafters with bigger crowds than some NFL games. There's no need to exaggerate the numbers - there's panning shots of them all live.
Clinton Bands 538 Huff ================================ Under 250 9.35% 1.18% 250-259 1.98% 0.87% 260-269 2.59% 1.31% 270-279 3.90% 2.42% 280-289 3.36% 2.47% 290-299 3.69% 4.19% 300-309 4.50% 6.24% 310-319 5.23% 6.50% 320-329 5.91% 8.09% 330-339 5.47% 8.86% 340-349 7.43% 19.04% 350-359 8.22% 16.84% 360-369 7.41% 7.70% 370-379 6.18% 5.21% 380-389 4.43% 2.88% 390-399 3.38% 2.30% 400 or over 16.99% 3.91% ================================ Prob Clinton win 86.09% 96.64% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 339.4 339.0 Clinton 270-up 75.4 69.7 Clinton 300-up 51.3 41.9 Clinton 330-up 31.0 18.6 Trump 270-up 5.9 0.6 Trump 300-up 2.8 0.1 Trump 330-up 1.2 0.0I'm interested in the evidence that "the Hillary strategy was a flood of polling with skewed samples"
If true, it's relevant for those of us punting on polls.
@platosays ?
Chuck us out?
Possibly you could explain how this was given as advice from a senior member of a progressive polling organisation to a political strategist and head of a democratic PAC. I am sure both must be completely ignorant of how polling works.
It's all video of Blacks and Hispanics - inc celebrity endorsements from 50 Cents et al. I've seen a few big attitude videos before - but nothing like this.
Greg Hilliard
As a Black Man from the Streets, Im trying EVERYTHING to get this mesage VIRAL. Please share this
#TheHoodForTrump
https://t.co/4Mpv4zQKzh
I still think Hillary will win, I am dubious it will be by a landslide.
Trumps issues in Florida
For example: The article advises oversampling hispanics in some regions to "maximise what we get out of the media polling". Surely getting the most out of polling (by, say, understanding a crucial demographic in more detail) is the whole point of it!
Or are you just going to call me a fool, too?
It would be the polling disaster to end all polling disasters... On a par with that Populus "Eve Of Referendum" poll giving REMAIN a 10% lead!
A sex fixer...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/
My own view is that he's over-doing it. He has a 4.2% chance of Hillary getting over 450 ECVs. Is that really a 23-1 shot?
Edit: I agree with @TheWhiteRabbit that the Huff model (and also the NYT and Princeton models) are under-estimating the chances of outlier results, but I think Nate is over-estimating them.
I am proud to present...
BrWRECKSit !!!
How AWESOME is that?
Anthony Wells was quite interesting on this yesterday.
TL;DR - polling wasn't that wrong on the EURef, but the media ignored it. It was wrong on GE2015 due to sample error. It could be wrong on WH2016 but 'could be' =/= 'is'.
Polls can look at a lot of things, or rather you can get one dataset of responses and draw several bits of info from it.
If you're doing a representative poll anyway, then you could also as part of that get information on what a particular group is doing. But you need a decent sample size for that group. So you ask the pollster to oversample group x while they're doing their phone calls.
At the end you have a dataset with enough of group x responses to analyse that group on its own, then for your representative poll you downweight their responses back in line with the demographics.
It's a way of getting more info by using overlapping datasets for separate analyses.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/790856397558800384
A first original thought! Did mummy help...?
its not a sure thing, but in terms of likelihood, Clinton is the massive favourite.
Labour’s infamous pink bus, which toured the country speaking to female voters, was also investigated by the commission, which found that all its spend was in order.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/25/labour-fined-20000-for-undeclared-election-spending-including-for-ed-stone
THE
ANSWER
WOZ...?
POTUS Countdown (24 hr changes)
Sporting Index Mid-Spreads:
Clinton 330 (+5) Trump 207 (-6)
538.com Predictions:
Clinton 339 (-2) Trump 198 (+2)
Do either of them actually know what's happening?
As I've said before, I'd probably want to be in Utah so I could vote for someone who wasn't either of them.
Also if one were a "progressive" polling and research organisation looking to ramp your prefered candidate, oversampling demographics known to be sympathetic to your candidate and then not controlling for that demographic (eg, weighting by race) would give you the sort of result you wanted whilst looking innocuous.
Use of that phrase is a way to get that thought in your thick head.
Happy? (sorry, two syllables in that last word)
2-way:
Clinton 50
Trump 44
4-way:
Clinton 46
Trump 41
https://t.co/QRe53FrcaN