politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph does a sting on the Trump campaign and finds tha

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Telegraph does a sting on the Trump campaign and finds that it’ll accept foreign donation

Exclusive investigation in Telegraph : Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal https://t.co/1mjGOhco8j

Read the full story here

eek

first unlike Donald who's as dead as a duck

tlg86

Second

Pulpstar

Did the Guardian topple Bush ?

tlg86

What happened to the Ukip thread? That looked interesting.

eek

tlg86 said:

What happened to the Ukip thread? That looked interesting.

Clearly it can wait... And you have to hand it to the Telegraph - this is proper Journalism...

foxinsoxuk

Oi! My "first" disappeared.

I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!

SquareRoot

Just noticed that DJ Dave Cash has died. I used to listen to him a fair bit.
He was only 74.

RIP .

eek

foxinsoxuk said:

Oi! My "first" disappeared.

I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!

sorry about Trumping you. I suspect it may reappear when the thread is reposted...

Malmesbury

How totally Trump. A sane politician would have gone the obvious way round this - the Clinton Foundation exists for a reason....

TheScreamingEagles

But Wikileaks.....

MaxPB

I think Trump is done anyway. Americans might not appreciate foreign intervention by the Telegraph. It might not be as bad as the Guardian letters in Ohio, but still maybe not as big of a deal as it looks on the face of it.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/ninjaeconomics/status/790651823002640389

TOPPING

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

TheScreamingEagles

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

I'd be really worried about you if you could raise even a semi in excitement over Donald Trump

619

MaxPB said:

I think Trump is done anyway. Americans might not appreciate foreign intervention by the Telegraph. It might not be as bad as the Guardian letters in Ohio, but still maybe not as big of a deal as it looks on the face of it.

its not intervention. Its a news story!

HYUFD

And Hillary hasn't?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/problem-for-hillary-clinton-charity-didnt-disclose-foreign-donors/

foxinsoxuk

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

HYUFD

What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!

foxinsoxuk

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

I don't think he can do anything by resigning.

TheScreamingEagles

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

Apparently he's a really nice, loyal, and charming guy, who people adore.

Obviously his ex wife might disagree.

nunu

Hahaha. Too funny. Not that his core supporters will be moved by it or anything else.

Jonathan

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

In two weeks Farage will be back, again.

Jobabob

There is no point OGH posting a PB Trumpton trolling thread at this time of night.

The Trumptons are mostly on the Morning Shift. You have to be up with the lark to troll them.

nunu

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

He reminds them of themselves ?

MarkHopkins

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

The more interesting question is how long they will be leader for.

How many hours?

foxinsoxuk

TheScreamingEagles said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

I'd be really worried about you if you could raise even a semi in excitement over Donald Trump

Who can resist the Donald's tiny hands...

HYUFD

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

Malmesbury

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

He kept his word about opposing Heathrow expansion. Incidentally, the problem politically with Heathrow expansion locally is not *this* expansion, so much as the utter certainty that the owners are lying when they say this is absolutely their last request for an expansion.

Over the years they have tried this "this is the last expansion"... for every single expansion! Strangely no one believes them anymore.

MarkHopkins

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

UKIP. Set up to destroy the Tories. Ends up destroying Labour.

Scott_P

They are going to ask the Belgians one more time...

@JustinTrudeau: I spoke with @eucopresident Tusk today - we agree that the EU & its members should continue to work towards the Summit on Thursday. #CETA

Mortimer

FPT:

SeanT said:

Mortimer said:

scotslass said:

Carlotta

And your evidence is ........ Fraser Nelson and the Spectator god help us.

I know for a fact that Sturgeon has not asked to be within the Customs Union. She has made her red line the single market. If there was any suggestion that wee Fraser even knew the difference between the two then you could take himseriously.

The truth is he doesn't and no-one should. His real motivation is a growing sense of panic that May and crew are being outmanoeuvred by Sturgeon.

Restaurant meetings with junior ministers are the way forward for foreign policy are they?

SNP have been, along with other parties, totally sidelined by Brexit and reaction to it.

The Tory party is the only party in town.

Brexit raises the chance of a swift 2nd indyref to 30%. But it reduces the chances of its being won to 5%.

Quite.

Whilst also allowing Tories to appear firmly as the party of the Union.

Just another reason why Leave was the optimal result for the Tory party as well as the country.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!

Nations have interests, not friends.

619

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

AlastairMeeks

If voters don't care that Donald Trump on his own account grabs women by the pussy, they're not going to care about illegal foreign donations.

rcs1000

MarkHopkins said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

The more interesting question is how long they will be leader for.

How many hours?

TOPPING

SeanT said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

Stop Heathrow and be a Tory. Without either, he could lose.

I don't see how he could stop Heathrow. As we are seeing. Tory again I think others might qualify.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/790643535011864578

SquareRoot

Talking of Kipper candidates.. Has this been posted..


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ukip-leadership-candidate-admits-mistake-of-claiming-gay-donkey-raped-his-horse/ar-AAjkH8e?li=AA59G2&ocid=spartandhp

HYUFD

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

No, as UKIP's future depends entirely on whether it is hard or soft Brexit, if the former they will cease to exist, if more the latter they will continue. Who holds the position of the most powerful person on earth is rather more important and will also have some impact on post Brexit UK given Hillary backed Remain and Trump backed Brexit. Mind you this story sounds like tomorrow's fish and chip paper, not much different to what Hilary has done before and I doubt it will make much headway in the US beyond maybe the liberal media

TOPPING

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

fpt

Why do the voters of Richmond like Zac so much? What can he do for them?

He kept his word about opposing Heathrow expansion. Incidentally, the problem politically with Heathrow expansion locally is not *this* expansion, so much as the utter certainty that the owners are lying when they say this is absolutely their last request for an expansion.

Over the years they have tried this "this is the last expansion"... for every single expansion! Strangely no one believes them anymore.

And again, so what if he opposes it? Can he do anything apart from tick the Richmond Constituency box?

Sean_F

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.

But, personality clashes can destroy the party.

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!

Nations have interests, not friends.

If only nations acted solely according to their interests.

brokenwheel

FPT

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

JackW said:

HYUFD said:

Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.

Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats

The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.

Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....

Yeah right ....

The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different

Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.

But how similar is early voting in the US to postal voting in the UK? As I understand it back in the past it used to be similar to ours with a lot of what they call "situational" voters (elderly, students, armed forces). Since its rapid expansion in the 2000s it has become much more heavily used by the well-educated and those with higher socio-economic status, or to use our equivalent "metropolitans".

619

HYUFD said:

What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!

ha ha ha ha

So the telegraph should tiny handed racist groper Trump for UK trade purposes???

ha ha ha

HYUFD

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

Jobabob

brokenwheel said:

FPT

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

JackW said:

HYUFD said:

Trump is certainly competitive in Minnesota, he does better there than he does nationally, in Pennsylvania he is about where he is nationally (making it most probably the key swing state) and he leads in Ohio and Iowa. As I said Hillary will likely win Colorado and New Mexico comfortably due to the Hispanic vote even if she loses nationally, though Florida and Nevada will likely be closer and are also closer than he trails Hillary nationally, if he wins the election he should therefore win both those states all being equal.

Why would the wwc vote early? Most of them can vote on the day, they don't live abroad do they and only a small minority will be in care homes etc. Of those that do it is also very difficult to identify them, party ID certainly won't do it as some wwc Trump voters may be registered Democrats

The last poll in Minnesota was a month ago. It's not being polled because it's not a swing state.

Hang on. You've been Trump(eting) for weeks that the WWC are so enthused for Donald that they'd electorally walk over hot coals for their man but now you say that they'll not take the first opportunity to show their loyalty but sit on their collective arse until polling day ....

Yeah right ....

The vast majority of the white working class voted for Brexit on June 23rd ie polling day, only a very small minority did early votes. There is no reason the US presidential election will be any different

Brexit outperformed in early voting. Trump is underperforming.

But how similar is early voting in the US to postal voting in the UK? As I understand it back in the past it used to be similar to ours with a lot of what they call "situational" voters (elderly, students, armed forces). Since its rapid expansion in the 2000s it has become much more heavily used by the well-educated and those with higher socio-economic status, or to use our equivalent "metropolitans".

Yes one of the problems with PB is that whatever is put in front of certain posters they deem it good for Trump.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

What an own goal by Brexit backing Telegraph.
Trump's trade adviser has said he will do a trade deal with UK first before the EU, Hillary will put the UK at 'back of queue' just like Obama!

Nations have interests, not friends.

Well so do we too

HYUFD

Just checked, this Telegraph Trump story getting zero coverage on either ABC or Fox website, move along please, nothing to see here

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/790656837741846528

foxinsoxuk

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

Those are bad figures for College grads. Trumpism doesn't seem to suit them. It is perhaps not surprising that Republican white collar workers are not keen on bringing down the establishment. It is largely them!

FF43

foxinsoxuk said:

Oi! My "first" disappeared.

I am feeling a bit Trumpy now!

The first shall not last.

619

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

Um....

what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.

Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.

chestnut

An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.

Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.

Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.

Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.

Monksfield

Lolz, Plato told us it was just Hillary who was a corporate shill.

619

HYUFD said:

Just checked, this Telegraph Trump story getting zero coverage on either ABC or Fox website, move along please, nothing to see here

it just came out online. Give it a few hours...

619

ha ha ha ha

https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/790656905475678208

williamglenn

chestnut said:

An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.

Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.

Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.

Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.

That would be to admit that they serve no purpose other than acting as a pressure group to make sure Brexit happens. It would be a suicidal strategy in the long term unless Brexit really does get derailed.

tyson

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.

But, personality clashes can destroy the party.

I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.

Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.

chestnut

williamglenn said:

chestnut said:

An intelligent UKIP would now focus on seeing Brexit through and targeting Remain MPs.

Where they are second and the main challenger to a Remainer, they lead the fight.

Where they are third or lower, they back the main Leave challenger.

Where there is a Leaver, they stand aside and focus on where it matters.

That would be to admit that they serve no purpose other than acting as a pressure group to make sure Brexit happens. It would be a suicidal strategy in the long term unless Brexit really does get derailed.

What is the purpose of UKIP?

Monksfield

MarkHopkins said:

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

UKIP. Set up to destroy the Tories. Ends up destroying Labour.

I don't think so. Any tendency to offer sensible policy by Evans or for that matter Nuttall will be more than enough for them to be publicly knifed by the lunatic fringe.

JackW

FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct

FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41

http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html

nielh

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.

I wouldn't write off labour under Corbyn that quickly. The UKIP threat would be the same, if not worse, were labour to be lead by Cooper, Burnham or Owen Smith. UKIP are associated with Brexit, and Brexit is already happening. So what are UKIP for? At least labour under Corbyn can explain what it is for.

I suspect the task will be too much for whoever leads UKIP, particularly given the hotchpotch of opinions within the party.

HYUFD

Early reports are Trump disavowed this PAC months ago so looks like little to the story anyway

619

JackW said:

FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct

FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41

http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html

oof. decent for OH, better for PA than other polls, but FL and NC would kill him anyway

chestnut

Doesn't the existence of the SNP depend on them perpetually failing in their main aim? If they ever achieve it they just become Scottish Labour, Scottish New Labour or Scottish Tories depending on policy.

UKIP achieved their aim in less than two decades. Where now once Brexit is complete?

gettingbetter

I think the value is with a big Clinton victory now. I am taking a portfolio approach and backing her to win outright, in various handicap markets and in states that are or could become competitive I am bscking her in alaska arizona colorado Georgia florida indiana kansas iowa missouri nevada Montana new Hampshire ohio north and south carolina ohio pennslyvania south dakota texas.
Dont suppose they will all win but I reckon on at least 10 of the 19.

JackW

619 said:

JackW said:

FOP & NC - ESA/Public Opinion Research - Samples All 875 - 16-23 Oct

FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
OH - Clinton 42 .. Trump 43
PA - Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
NC - Clinton 47 .. Trump 41

http://www.allianceesapoll.com/new-poll-results.html

oof. decent for OH, better for PA than other polls, but FL and NC would kill him anyway

Broadly in the ball park. OH very tight, PA looks a tad low for Clinton and NC a tad high.

IanB2

tyson said:

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.

But, personality clashes can destroy the party.

I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.

Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.

Suzanne Evans is opposed by both Farage and Banks, so she is dead in the water. A shame, since she comes across well in the media, although as a former Home Counties Tory councillor I am not sure she is ideally positioned to go after wwc labour voters. I always thought Nuttall was the better bet - although I am not sure how well he is in with the ruling duo, either?

Alistair

gettingbetter said:

I think the value is with a big Clinton victory now. I am taking a portfolio approach and backing her to win outright, in various handicap markets and in states that are or could become competitive I am bscking her in alaska arizona colorado Georgia florida indiana kansas iowa missouri nevada Montana new Hampshire ohio north and south carolina ohio pennslyvania south dakota texas.
Dont suppose they will all win but I reckon on at least 10 of the 19.

My view, based on not very much, is that the various Romeny sates will fall in two blocks. Either everything in a block will go or they will all stay. Clinton has posted big gains in red states, but the margins mean she has to post yuge gains to take them. If she posts yuge gains she sweeps them all, if not then they all stand together.

foxinsoxuk

619 said:

HYUFD said:

Just checked, this Telegraph Trump story getting zero coverage on either ABC or Fox website, move along please, nothing to see here

it just came out online. Give it a few hours...

Post it on Wikileaks or Sputniknews so that the Trumpsters can see it.

nunu

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

Richard_Nabavi

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/790635074765062145

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.

But, personality clashes can destroy the party.

I can see a sensible, disciplined, Suzanne Evans-led UKIP winning 20% of the vote in England and Wales in 2020. That would doom Labour to permanent irrelevance.

Eventually this UKIP might actually win a general election.

The party is at a critical stage. They could disappear in the next two years, or become England's SNP.

Nuttall wanted to close down the NHS. A northern accent alone will not be enough. UKIP's leaders and members need to leave their comfort zone. There's little indication they will so far.

HYUFD

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Yes, it looks like it is pretty much a non-story

HYUFD

619 said:

HYUFD said:

Just checked, this Telegraph Trump story getting zero coverage on either ABC or Fox website, move along please, nothing to see here

it just came out online. Give it a few hours...

Not likely when there is as little to it as is now emerging

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.

The SNP turned left and spent 20 years building a support base.

HYUFD

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

Um....

what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.

Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.

White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads

HaroldO

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.

MP_SE

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/790635074765062145

A local golf driving range has Clinton and Trump targets up at the moment.

At the general election they had Cameron, Miliband, Farage and Clegg. No Sturgeon or Bennett which I found amusing.

IanB2

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

I thought that AA women has the highest turnout of any US demographic, and polls strongly for Clinton.

Last time the Republicans needed more than just white voters to win, yet there's been four years of demographic change trending away from whites since then. Trump has lost the more educated ones and taken a hit amongst women generally. The only straw he can clutch is hoping for a higher than usual turnout amongst wwc (male) voters (which he would need in the swing states, rather than those republicans always win), which doesn't seem much to set against all his handicaps both fundamental and self-inflicted.

619

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

Um....

what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.

Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.

White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads

not among registered voters they definitely are not. The minor gains from wwc are offset by that massive margin difference. And dont forget, Romney LOST with a much bigger white margin!

foxinsoxuk

IanB2 said:

tyson said:

Sean_F said:

SeanT said:

Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?

UKIP might be about to seize victory from the jaws of oblivion. Both Evans and Nuttall are perfect in terms of seizing Labour territory in the north, Wales, etc. They just need to sort out their chaotic party squabbling, find some money, and get decent candidates.

Both candidates are miles ahead of Corbyn. Labour are facing - yes - an existential threat.

Agreed. There ought to be scope for such a party. Many of the senior figures have done all they can to sink the ship, but the article cited by Alistair Meeks shows 10-14% supporting the party in local elections, similar to the polls.

But, personality clashes can destroy the party.

I think Nuttall is the one Labour would fear most. When I brought this up before, you said that he had some black mark or other.

Nuttall is one of the most gifted political communicators of his age. He's not going to float the boat of the Islington middle classes, but he'll be a danger to Labour traditional heartlands which is the most logical place for UKIP to go.

Suzanne Evans is opposed by both Farage and Banks, so she is dead in the water. A shame, since she comes across well in the media, although as a former Home Counties Tory councillor I am not sure she is ideally positioned to go after wwc labour voters. I always thought Nuttall was the better bet - although I am not sure how well he is in with the ruling duo, either?

His recent speech looks to be an attack on the UKIP NEC and Aaron Banks.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/ukip-can-have-a-bright-future-but-only-by-uniting-and-turning-it/amp/?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb

Both targets ripe for taking down (though the latter is expensive), but could easily leed to more infighting.

Tim_B

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Also, compared to the documented activities of the Clinton Foundation, this fades into insignificance.

Richard_Nabavi

HaroldO said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.

Yeah, it will be re-published in the anti-Trump press and ignored by the pro-Trump press, but it is feeble anyway. Some guy was told he'd had influence if he gave a lot of dosh to an organisation which (in theory at least) has zero contact with the Trump campaign.

There are plenty of reasons for thinking Trump will lose badly, but this isn't one of them.

HYUFD

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smaller

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct24

williamglenn

IanB2 said:

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

I thought that AA women has the highest turnout of any US demographic, and polls strongly for Clinton.

I thought Oprah's intervention was quite effective.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/oprah-winfrey-on-clinton-230148

“I hear this all the time. You get into conversations — and there’s not a person in this room who hasn’t been in this same conversation — where people say, ‘I just don’t know if I like her.’”

“She’s not coming over to your house! You don’t have to like her,” she said. “You don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. Do you like the country? Do you like freedom and liberty? Do you like this country? OK. Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue?”

Toms

SeanT said :
"Can we talk about UKIP rather than this now-predictable POTUS election?"

Actually, the election also involves, I believe, all the representatives and one third of the senators. Since the Republicans now control both houses it's critical to Clinton to address this situation. That appears to be what she is now doing.

Richard_Nabavi

Tim_B said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Also, compared to the documented activities of the Clinton Foundation, this fades into insignificance.

Yes, that too.

MP_SE

The Brexit Club by Owen Bennett is well worth a read.

The Leave campaigns were even more shambolic than I thought. The strategies used by the various campaigns are quite interesting. The childish fighting is almost unbelievable.

I would like to read something similar which focuses on the Remain campaign.

HaroldO

Richard_Nabavi said:

HaroldO said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Yawn. It's a Super PAC, not the Trump campaign, which appears to have been a bit economical with the due diligence, and it's the Telegraph, which not a single person in the US has heard of.

Surely all it takes is it being re-published in a US paper? A not unheard of occurrence.

Yeah, it will be re-published in the anti-Trump press and ignored by the pro-Trump press, but it is feeble anyway. Some guy was told he'd had influence if he gave a lot of dosh to an organisation which (in theory at least) has zero contact with the Trump campaign.

There are plenty of reasons for thinking Trump will lose badly, but this isn't one of them.

I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.

IanB2

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

foxinsoxuk said:

SeanT said:

BTW there really SHOULD be a UKIP leader thread.

It occurs to me that, by mistake, UKIP have come up with two very threatening-to-Labour candidates, in Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans.

If they go the centrist but ethnocentric route, socially conservative and patriotic, and if they can somehow find donors and decent candidates, UKIP under either of these plausible leaders could supplant Labour-under-Corbyn. Literally: SUPPLANT.

They would be the Hard Brexit working class patriots versus the soft Brexit Tory poshos, and Labour would be nowhere. Labour would be finished.

Evans is capable, Nuttall too. I am not sure that either can lead a campaign with so much backroom backstabbing going on.

Agreed. It's the back office stuff that will kill them. But they have a unique opportunity to take over from Labour in England and Wales, as the SNP did in Scotland, if they can avoid self destruction.

The SNP turned left and spent 20 years building a support base.

And started out as a centre-right Scottish alternative to the Tories, who they replaced first in areas like Angus, enabling them to mop up all the anti-Labour votes. UKIP would need to do the same with Tory voters in the north, as the LibDems did a generation back in the big northern cities.

Aside from its disfunctional organisation and disfunctional personalities, UKIP is critically handicapped by having been tied to one single issue which is likely now to fade in importance.

Banks must be weighing up whether using his huge leave.EU database to try and start from scratch along the lines of the Italian Cinque Stelle would be a better bet. Now surely that is worth a thread header?

HYUFD

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

Um....

what on earth are you talking about? Clinton has a 25+ swing with college educated whites, compared to Trump's 4 point swing with non college.

Thats NOT millions of WWC going Trump.

White college grads voted Remain too, they tend to be establishment, there are more WWC than college grads

not among registered voters they definitely are not. The minor gains from wwc are offset by that massive margin difference. And dont forget, Romney LOST with a much bigger white margin!

There were not more white college graduates voting than white working class voters in 2012 and white working class turnout will be up this year, Romney lost because of the high African American turnout in 2012 which will not be repeated this year

619

From a newspaper owned by a Trump donor who endorsed him...

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/790664793346539520

IanB2

MP_SE said:

The Brexit Club by Owen Bennett is well worth a read.

The Leave campaigns were even more shambolic than I thought. The strategies used by the various campaigns are quite interesting. The childish fighting is almost unbelievable.

I would like to read something similar which focuses on the Remain campaign.

Reading the Amazon reviews and your comment, it looks like this confirms some of the chaotic anecdotes being shared in here in the runup to the vote, and my feeling that, had the result gone the other way, there would have been no shortage of worthy analysis demonstrating why leave deserved to lose. Both campaigns were appalling and they both deserved to lose.

williamglenn

IanB2 said:

Aside from its disfunctional organisation and disfunctional personalities, UKIP is critically handicapped by having been tied to one single issue which is likely now to fade in importance.

The fact that the main English nationalist party is called UKIP encapsulates every single political and constitutional problem we have in this country.

nunu

HYUFD said:

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smaller

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct24

Where are the breakdown in white voting I can't see it.

glw

HaroldO said:

I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.

I'm reading that again as I do each Presidential election, I always find new parallels. Some things change but a lot remains the same, and US politics and campaigning has always been a dirty business.

Alistair

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

nunu said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

Yawn.

No offence to PB. But Trump has lost. I cannot raise even a semi in excitement.

He leads with Rasmussen today, tied with IBID-TIPP

CNN poll

White college: Clinton +11
White non-college: Trump +30

2012 (per Pew)

White college: Romney +14
White non-college: Romney +26

So even on a poll where Hillary leads by more than Obama did in 2012 Trump is doing better with white working class voters than Romney and there are more of them than white college graduates and they vote less often so if they do vote it makes more impact. Coupled with lower African American turnout it remains unpredictable

How does it make more impact, what the hell kind of logic is that. No if Clinton leads by that much with white educated voters it will out do his gains with non educated whites as their turnout is much higher and are registered as opposed to the uneducated who arent even registered to vote yet and don't have any time to so in the swing states.

This is with a poll with a 6% Clinton lead nationally, if she wins by that margin obviously she wins however Rasmussen today has Trump with a 'sizeable' lead amongst whites so on that basis Hillary's lead with white graduates is likely much smaller

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct24

Where are the breakdown in white voting I can't see it.

You need platinum access to see Rasmussen demographic info. It is one of the many reasons they are a joke.

HaroldO

glw said:

HaroldO said:

I don't think it is a game changer, but it is another little dent into his "anti-politician, politician" kick he has been running on for the last year.
Every single person who has run that ticket has fallen by way side after a while, I remember reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and reading the same thing happen and to a much nicer guy in McGovern.

I'm reading that again as I do each Presidential election, I always find new parallels. Some things change but a lot remains the same, and US politics and campaigning has always been a dirty business.

I've only been through it twice as it turns into a hard read at times, especially the machinations at the Dem conference. The parliamentary proceedings group discussion they have (the one transcribed from tape) is probably both the most interesting, and dullest, back and forth I have ever read.
It feels self indulgent at times, but he really gets outside the bubble in a way that the morons at the Canary only wish they could. Rather than wiring their click bait bullshit.