Who launches a tracker poll with two weeks to go and a big D+ sample? It's laughable PR masquerading as hard news. ABC and NBC have ruined their credibility at this election.
IIRC Reagan was +10, who believes the entire US goes +12 for Hillary?
I haven't heard you whining about the "interesting" samples in Rasmussen that show Trump leading. That said the weighting of this poll is Dem heavy.
I'd adjust the poll to Clinton +8. Outliers in elections with over 3,000 polls this year would not be usual. What would you call a Rasmussen poll with Donald +3 .... Accurate ?!?
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
Glad you liked it - I thought it was a rare moment of clarity from a hardcore Guardian reading type.
If anyone's interested - this radio show from popular right-wing guy Mitchellviii had some great nuggets and at times rather amusing when contrasting Obama enthusiasm with Hillary. PG rated.
He's had something like 130m Twitter hits in the last month - the impact of social media on this election has been immense. Some commentators are gathering tens of thousands new followers a month.
Who launches a tracker poll with two weeks to go and a big D+ sample? It's laughable PR masquerading as hard news. ABC and NBC have ruined their credibility at this election.
IIRC Reagan was +10, who believes the entire US goes +12 for Hillary?
There's a chunk of habitual Republican voters who identify as independents, so demographically balanced samples will have significantly more Democrats than Republicans. On top of that, Trump isn't universally popular among GOP supporters, some of whom are telling pollsters they're going to sit this one out.
Dont you know its a plot by the MSM and Clinton to make it look like she is winning
OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE
ClintonBot #619, nearly up to 1000 posts in ten weeks on how wonderful she is, to an audience who won't be voting.
Who launches a tracker poll with two weeks to go and a big D+ sample? It's laughable PR masquerading as hard news. ABC and NBC have ruined their credibility at this election.
IIRC Reagan was +10, who believes the entire US goes +12 for Hillary?
There's a chunk of habitual Republican voters who identify as independents, so demographically balanced samples will have significantly more Democrats than Republicans. On top of that, Trump isn't universally popular among GOP supporters, some of whom are telling pollsters they're going to sit this one out.
Dont you know its a plot by the MSM and Clinton to make it look like she is winning
OPEN YOUR EYES SHEEPLE
ClintonBot #619, nearly up to 1000 posts in ten weeks on how wonderful she is, to an audience who won't be voting.
Who launches a tracker poll with two weeks to go and a big D+ sample?
"Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents."
Looks fine to me. More people identify as Democrats going back 25+ years.
If you assume a true lead of 6%, and the number of polls we're getting, then with 3% MoE you'd expect a regular spread of results between zero and +12. That's pretty much what's happening.
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
Glad you liked it - I thought it was a rare moment of clarity from a hardcore Guardian reading type.
If anyone's interested - this radio show from popular right-wing guy Mitchellviii had some great nuggets and at times rather amusing when contrasting Obama enthusiasm with Hillary. PG rated.
He's had something like 130m Twitter hits in the last month - the impact of social media on this election has been immense. Some commentators are gathering tens of thousands new followers a month.
It is very unlikely indeed that the local Conservative association will want to field a candidate against Zac, or that they would choose any candidate who wasn't 100% opposed to the new runway. The choice is not just up to CCHQ, and it would be a declaration of war to try to impose a candidate. The political logic therefore points towards either Zac standing again as a Conservative, or him being unopposed by the Conservatives.
In which case he should be shredded for wasting everybody's time and money.
The only real surprise about the government announcement is that there doesn't seem to be a p.s. as was perhaps expected - for example "Gatwick can have a runway too" or "we'll also continue to expand Birmingham or Manchester". All the eggs are in the Heathrow basket.
The local Tory executive have said previously they will not put up a Tory candidate against Goldsmith, so it will be Zac v LDs v maybe a pro Heathrow independent
A move to pass by QMV would mean gutting it and there is no satisfying the Waloons. I'm sure the commission and Canada have made modifications, but then they also thought CETA would pass as is.
What odds a colossal EU grant lands in Wallonia within 12 months.
A bit of pork has never hurt anyone, but then again they still might not vote in favour given the strength of opposition to ISDS arbitration.
I really struggle to see the point Goldsmith is making with taxpayers' money here. He was elected as an anti-Heathrow Conservative. He already has a clear mandate to rebel on the issue.
If he wins, so what? It reconfirms that people on the flight-path don't want Heathrow expansion, but that's a statement of the bleedin' obvious and his seat is one of 650 in the UK. Indeed, if he stands and loses it will be to a Lib Dem (who are anti-Heathrow as a party policy) or another anti-Heathrow Tory, so his losing doesn't even vaguely suggest his constituents are pro-Heathrow.
The only real point of him standing down is if he DOESN'T stand again. Then at least he sets a precedent for other MPs in future saying "if I fail to deliver promise X, I'll fall on my sword".
There's precedent for him to stand again as a Tory - David Davis in the Haltemprice by-election. Zac actually has better grounds - he told the voters he would stand on the Tory Manifesto, but also a personal manifesto of opposing Heathrow expansion. Now he is asking the voters whether they still have the desire for him to represent them, given he has not been unsuccesful in one of the planks they voted him in as their MP.
He is still a Tory and nothing else has changed.
Except he's failed to deliver on his personal manifesto and deserves to be punished for it. This will be all about hard Brexit and in a very anti Brexit area there's lots of scope to send Cruella a message. I think it just might get sent.
Imagine a Cable v Goldsmith contest, as your you hand hovers over a ballot paper.
They are all in the house of lords
Cable isn't in the House of Lords. He's slated to stand again in Twickenham if there's an early election.
They won't pick him though (and he won't put his name forward). They already have a strong candidate in Sarah Olney and, although there will be a re-selection for a by-election, there's practically zero chance it'll be anyone else.
That is effectively neck and neck as is LA Times, Rasmussen still has Trump ahead. If Hillary wins I remain convinced it will be closer to the former than the likes of NBC and ABC especially with lower African American turnout and higher white working class turnout
Water under the bridge, I thought that at the time for reasons I won't go in to now, Boris and Theresa doing a marvellous job, of course I would consider a job in government, etc.
That is effectively neck and neck as is LA Times, Rasmussen still has Trump ahead. If Hillary wins I remain convinced it will be closer to the former than the likes of NBC and ABC especially with lower African American turnout and higher white working class turnout
Imagine a Cable v Goldsmith contest, as your you hand hovers over a ballot paper.
They are all in the house of lords
Cable isn't in the House of Lords. He's slated to stand again in Twickenham if there's an early election.
They won't pick him though (and he won't put his name forward). They already have a strong candidate in Sarah Olney and, although there will be a re-selection for a by-election, there's practically zero chance it'll be anyone else.
You are right - and they will be so desperate for a woman MP as well. The pressures from being all-male has already promoted the party to abandon its long opposition to all-women shortlists as well as new rules to fiddle internal elections to ensure that a batch of women get elected regardless of how members vote.
Water under the bridge, I thought that at the time for reasons I won't go in to now, Boris and Theresa doing a marvellous job, of course I would consider a job in government.
Goldsmith is crap. When leave won the Brexit argument I can't even remember him making a valid contribution. His mayoral campaign was weak and he was never the right candidate to follow Boris. Having said all that May will be delighted if he stands as an independent. The Lib Dems will surely win comfortably otherwise in a place like Richmond.
That is effectively neck and neck as is LA Times, Rasmussen still has Trump ahead. If Hillary wins I remain convinced it will be closer to the former than the likes of NBC and ABC especially with lower African American turnout and higher white working class turnout
ABC tracker is D+9...
Indeed, farcical. Though Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats
LBC reporting that Boris isn't that bothered (no surprise there!) and will be allowed to make a token statement in opposition, after which he'll be off on foreign trips and too busy to say much more.
It will be interesting if history comes to see Witney..so far dismissed as an irrelevant by-election..as the precursor that gave the LibDems credibility going into a much bigger contest. Witney is being mentioned a lot in the media today when the official script was that it would be forgotten by now.
Out of interest where does OGH get his constituency result for Remain in Richmond Park from? Have ward level results been declared, or is this simply based on box sampling at the count? The constituency covers wards from two Boroughs, both of which recorded a lower remain vote share than he gives for the constituency.
That is effectively neck and neck as is LA Times, Rasmussen still has Trump ahead. If Hillary wins I remain convinced it will be closer to the former than the likes of NBC and ABC especially with lower African American turnout and higher white working class turnout
ABC tracker is D+9...
Indeed, farcical. Though Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats
so, how many more registered democrats are there compared to repub? Or are you saying it should be 50/50?
I really struggle to see the point Goldsmith is making with taxpayers' money here. He was elected as an anti-Heathrow Conservative. He already has a clear mandate to rebel on the issue.
If he wins, so what? It reconfirms that people on the flight-path don't want Heathrow expansion, but that's a statement of the bleedin' obvious and his seat is one of 650 in the UK. Indeed, if he stands and loses it will be to a Lib Dem (who are anti-Heathrow as a party policy) or another anti-Heathrow Tory, so his losing doesn't even vaguely suggest his constituents are pro-Heathrow.
The only real point of him standing down is if he DOESN'T stand again. Then at least he sets a precedent for other MPs in future saying "if I fail to deliver promise X, I'll fall on my sword".
He made a pledge before the election. Whether it was right or wrong thing to do, he is honouring it now.
To offer an LD perspective as I suspect we've mostly had a Conservative perspective up to now, Goldmith's resignation presents the Conservatives with a short-term problem and the LDs with a medium to long term problem.
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
So "dithering" May has done in 3 months what Cameron didn't do in 6 years....
He sure did dither on it, but it's hardly reasonable to compare the two situations. For all the long dithering before he came on the scene, Cameron did not come in to power with 6 years of his party having the opportunity to prevariacate behind him, which gives greater ability to dither further. What would May's excuse have been?
To offer an LD perspective as I suspect we've mostly had a Conservative perspective up to now, Goldmith's resignation presents the Conservatives with a short-term problem and the LDs with a medium to long term problem.
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
Out of interest where does OGH get his constituency result for Remain in Richmond Park from? Have ward level results been declared, or is this simply based on box sampling at the count? The constituency covers wards from two Boroughs, both of which recorded a lower remain vote share than he gives for the constituency.
There are various estimates around. Chris Hanretty has it as 77-23, though with fairly large error bars.
He made a pledge before the election. Whether it was right or wrong thing to do, he is honouring it now.
It was a pledge that made sense only if he DIDN'T stand again, that's my point... "I've failed and I'm falling on my sword". I can see that as personal responsibility, and personal sacrifice.
It's the standing again that's a nonsense... "elect me and it'll reconfirm you're against Heathrow... or you could equally vote for the anti-Heathrow Lib Dems or (presumably) anti-Heathrow Tory candidate... oh, and you'll pay for the by-election cost."
I really struggle to see the point Goldsmith is making with taxpayers' money here. He was elected as an anti-Heathrow Conservative. He already has a clear mandate to rebel on the issue.
If he wins, so what? It reconfirms that people on the flight-path don't want Heathrow expansion, but that's a statement of the bleedin' obvious and his seat is one of 650 in the UK. Indeed, if he stands and loses it will be to a Lib Dem (who are anti-Heathrow as a party policy) or another anti-Heathrow Tory, so his losing doesn't even vaguely suggest his constituents are pro-Heathrow.
The only real point of him standing down is if he DOESN'T stand again. Then at least he sets a precedent for other MPs in future saying "if I fail to deliver promise X, I'll fall on my sword".
He made a pledge before the election. Whether it was right or wrong thing to do, he is honouring it now.
Indeed - Goldsmith himself told the media just a couple of weeks back that he now regretted his promise but would go through with it as a matter of honour. Whilst admirable from one perspective, the fact that he has already conceded that his orIginal commitment was a mistake and is essentially wasting everyone's time doesn't put him in a great position.
To offer an LD perspective as I suspect we've mostly had a Conservative perspective up to now, Goldmith's resignation presents the Conservatives with a short-term problem and the LDs with a medium to long term problem.
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
The middle course is just to let the local party pick a candidate, who will presumably be anti-runway. If Zac wins he'll be a barely-relevant independent, if the Tory wins then great and if the LibDems win then, shit happens but whatever.
He made a pledge before the election. Whether it was right or wrong thing to do, he is honouring it now.
It was a pledge that made sense only if he DIDN'T stand again, that's my point... "I've failed and I'm falling on my sword". I can see that as personal responsibility, and personal sacrifice.
It's the standing again that's a nonsense... "elect me and it'll reconfirm you're against Heathrow... or you could equally vote for the anti-Heathrow Lib Dems or (presumably) anti-Heathrow Tory candidate... oh, and you'll pay for the by-election cost."
Surely if the Conservatives (I doubt they will) run a candidate other than Zac in Richmond Park he or she will be pro-Heathrow ? Otherwise whats the point
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
Two points. First is the dubious economics.
Second is that Trump is the REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE. Sending him to Washington will not put a bomb under the establishment. It'll irritate them but that's all. If he was standing as an independent, I could understand MM taking his side in order to be on the side of the "unrepresented", but as it is, MM looks foolish siding with a Republican against a Democrat. Although she won't put a 35% tax on Mexican-built SUVs, she is the candidate of the poor.
Boris raising his head above parapet - claims Heathrow expansion won't happen. Is he looking for the FO exit?
Up to a point, Lord Copper... norman smith norman smith @BBCNormanS Boris Johnson declines to repeat his pledge to lie down in front of bulldozers over #heathrow
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
I doubt there is either but if you want a pro-Government Conservative candidate rather than an anti-Government Conservative that's where you need to be.
As Richmond Park was strongly pro-REMAIN in June, a pro-REMAIN anti-LHR3 candidate should fit the bill (I wonder which party that fits best ?) but Goldsmith's anti-LHR3 credentials are undeniable and if that becomes "the issue" of the by-election Goldsmith will win.
If Heathrow drops off the radar and Goldsmith is forced back on to his pro-LEAVE position, then he might begin to look vulnerable.
He made a pledge before the election. Whether it was right or wrong thing to do, he is honouring it now.
It was a pledge that made sense only if he DIDN'T stand again, that's my point... "I've failed and I'm falling on my sword". I can see that as personal responsibility, and personal sacrifice.
It's the standing again that's a nonsense... "elect me and it'll reconfirm you're against Heathrow... or you could equally vote for the anti-Heathrow Lib Dems or (presumably) anti-Heathrow Tory candidate... oh, and you'll pay for the by-election cost."
You're not seeing the wood for the trees.
It was a pledge that only made sense if he kept open the right to stand again. It's not to punish him for his failure, it's to try to prevent and if not to punish the government for going ahead with LHR3. The idea was that with the threat of Zac causing a by-election (and probably winning against any Tory) it would weigh on Cameron's mind and maybe prevent him from greenlighting LHR. In one way it worked, Cameron never gave it the greenlight even after the Commission reported.
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
It feels like a setup for a "it'll feel good but he'll screw you", I expect that comes right after the point where they cut it.
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
I doubt there is either but if you want a pro-Government Conservative candidate rather than an anti-Government Conservative that's where you need to be.
As Richmond Park was strongly pro-REMAIN in June, a pro-REMAIN anti-LHR3 candidate should fit the bill (I wonder which party that fits best ?) but Goldsmith's anti-LHR3 credentials are undeniable and if that becomes "the issue" of the by-election Goldsmith will win.
If Heathrow drops off the radar and Goldsmith is forced back on to his pro-LEAVE position, then he might begin to look vulnerable.
You and I clearly share the view that the key for our LibDems is turning the election back onto Brexit.
It will be good for us on PB to have another angle to discuss Brexit from, since so far we have surely only barely scraped the surface.
To offer an LD perspective as I suspect we've mostly had a Conservative perspective up to now, Goldmith's resignation presents the Conservatives with a short-term problem and the LDs with a medium to long term problem.
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
There are Heathrow users as well as workers.
I live under the flightpath of the only airport in England with flights through the night (East Midlands). I was a bit annoyed when they moved it to over me, and initially it woke me up, but now I no longer notice. Freight planes are older and noisier too.
Better capacity and longer hours means fewer holding patterns so less fuel wasted.
Gillian Tett's comments on the parallels between Brexit and US election are very interesting. Her bit starts at around 30 minutes but the whole thing's worth listening to if you have time.
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
It feels like a setup for a "it'll feel good but he'll screw you", I expect that comes right after the point where they cut it.
"Then he gets to the heart of the matter, which has two parts. The first is to address Trump supporters from his own heart. He begins with a series of jokes addressing and warmly mocking “vagenda of manocide”-type masculine paranoia, culminating in jokes about the internment camps for men that would arise during a Clinton Presidency. But he then turns earnest and reads a text that, he says, he wrote that very day (and it’s actually handwritten)—one in which he addresses Trump supporters, “the dispossessed,” who are members of the “former middle class,” people who’ve lost jobs and health insurance, who may have lost their homes and their savings, and who, he says, have “lost everything but the right to vote.” Moore describes Trump as “the Molotov cocktail, the hand grenade thrown into the system that screwed them.” Moore acknowledges that many of Trump’s supporters are all the more motivated by the hatred that Trump arouses among the nation’s élites—the overlords of the institutions that have presided over these voters’ misery. "
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
Two points. First is the dubious economics.
Second is that Trump is the REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE. Sending him to Washington will not put a bomb under the establishment. It'll irritate them but that's all. If he was standing as an independent, I could understand MM taking his side in order to be on the side of the "unrepresented", but as it is, MM looks foolish siding with a Republican against a Democrat. Although she won't put a 35% tax on Mexican-built SUVs, she is the candidate of the poor.
Michael moore just released an Anti-Trump film, 'Trumpland'
My back of the napkin: Early voting up by average of 57% today in Texas' five biggest counties compared to first early voting day in 2012
Y'all voting for The Donald?
These seats lean Democrat.
Yup. The close polls are making the democrats all come out. Be interesting to see if the republicans ( who assume texas won't be lsot) will do the same...
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
There are Heathrow users as well as workers.
I live under the flightpath of the only airport in England with flights through the night (East Midlands). I was a bit annoyed when they moved it to over me, and initially it woke me up, but now I no longer notice. Freight planes are older and noisier too.
Better capacity and longer hours means fewer holding patterns so less fuel wasted.
Yes, but as a user I am presumably happy using the flights it offers already. And even the most regular users only fly every now and again. Whereas if my Richmond villa is under the flight path I have planes going overhead every few minutes.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
I doubt there is either but if you want a pro-Government Conservative candidate rather than an anti-Government Conservative that's where you need to be.
As Richmond Park was strongly pro-REMAIN in June, a pro-REMAIN anti-LHR3 candidate should fit the bill (I wonder which party that fits best ?) but Goldsmith's anti-LHR3 credentials are undeniable and if that becomes "the issue" of the by-election Goldsmith will win.
If Heathrow drops off the radar and Goldsmith is forced back on to his pro-LEAVE position, then he might begin to look vulnerable.
Given the sheer quantity of Lib Dem activists that are about to descend on Richmond and the fact that the LDs agree with Goldsmith on Heathrow, surely the by-election will be fought on other issues? I can't see how he will be able to keep the electorate focussed on that issue alone.
When you look beyond Heathrow he's got real weaknesses on Brexit and the media criticism of his Mayoral campaign that should play into moderate Conservative voters' sense of unease about the May government. At this stage I would tend to agree with Mr Smithson's assessment.
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
It feels like a setup for a "it'll feel good but he'll screw you", I expect that comes right after the point where they cut it.
Yes, but as a user I am presumably happy using the flights it offers already. And even the most regular users only fly every now and again. Whereas if my Richmond villa is under the flight path I have planes going overhead every few minutes.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
Isn't the solution for the Tories to put up an avowedly pro-HR3 candidate then? One that will get very little popular support among the residents of Richmond and drive voters to Zac. That will mean they put up a candidate but ensure that the centre right vote isn't split and Zac still gets anti-HR3 Tory voters.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
Some interesting points, but I doubt there is much of a pro-LHR3 vote in Richmond. Most of the Heathrow workforce lives in poorer areas like Hounslow, Hillingdon and Slough. Yes, Richmond will contain a lot of Heathrow passengers, but being a user of the airport doesn't necessarily mean you have a personal stake in it becoming bigger.
There are Heathrow users as well as workers.
I live under the flightpath of the only airport in England with flights through the night (East Midlands). I was a bit annoyed when they moved it to over me, and initially it woke me up, but now I no longer notice. Freight planes are older and noisier too.
Better capacity and longer hours means fewer holding patterns so less fuel wasted.
Yes, but as a user I am presumably happy using the flights it offers already. And even the most regular users only fly every now and again. Whereas if my Richmond villa is under the flight path I have planes going overhead every few minutes.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record on this, the new runway is going to be *North* of the existing field - there will be *fewer* planes over Richmond from the day it opens.
Hopefully the Tories will put a pro-expansion candidate forward if Zac chooses to leave the party.
Yes, but as a user I am presumably happy using the flights it offers already. And even the most regular users only fly every now and again. Whereas if my Richmond villa is under the flight path I have planes going overhead every few minutes.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
Isn't the solution for the Tories to put up an avowedly pro-HR3 candidate then? One that will get very little popular support among the residents of Richmond and drive voters to Zac. That will mean they put up a candidate but ensure that the centre right vote isn't split and Zac still gets anti-HR3 Tory voters.
The queue for that job will be a mile long! What's the payoff?
Yes, but as a user I am presumably happy using the flights it offers already. And even the most regular users only fly every now and again. Whereas if my Richmond villa is under the flight path I have planes going overhead every few minutes.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
Isn't the solution for the Tories to put up an avowedly pro-HR3 candidate then? One that will get very little popular support among the residents of Richmond and drive voters to Zac. That will mean they put up a candidate but ensure that the centre right vote isn't split and Zac still gets anti-HR3 Tory voters.
The queue for that job will be a mile long! What's the payoff?
A run at a Lab/Con marginal in 2020, maybe somewhere like Hampstead where a good Tory candidate will be able to win against a weak Labour MP and changing boundaries (Labour Kilburn out, Tory Golders Green in).
What a plonker Goldsmith is. Single constituency votes don't decide national policy. Boring!
Meanwhile, Betfair midprices for the US election, for every candidate or non-candidate whom it's possible to lay as well as back, are as follows:
Clinton 1.205 Sanders 265 Biden 900
Trump 6.1 Pence 825
Sanders is well ahead of the lower-placed possibilities. Who's backing him? Surely if something were to happen to Clinton, her replacement would be Kaine?
Gillian Tett's comments on the parallels between Brexit and US election are very interesting. Her bit starts at around 30 minutes but the whole thing's worth listening to if you have time.
Miss @PlatoSaid, your link on the last thread from that darling of the liberal left Michael Moore, about what is driving Trump's support, is very powerful indeed.
There's a whole load of Middle America who have literally nothing left to lose.
I wonder when MM made that speech? When he did his Q&A after the UK premiere of his latest film a couple of months ago, he was warning that Trump would win (a la Brexit), but hadn't actually jumped the shark and espoused him for president, as he appears to be doing here.
It feels like a setup for a "it'll feel good but he'll screw you", I expect that comes right after the point where they cut it.
Yes, I think he's very recently (yesterday ?) said that a vote for Trump is "legal terrorism".
What's interesting is how acute his understanding of the pro-Trump viewpoint must be, given the remarkable readiness of those backers to say "exactly !"; "this is going to win us the election !", and to claim him as their own - something that might be a rational ploy on election day, but hardly two weeks out.
Second is that Trump is the REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE. Sending him to Washington will not put a bomb under the establishment.
I agree with your claim, but your premise offers very little support for it. Trump is not under the orders of the Republican party. Sure, if he wins the election and then pisses off enough congressmen and senators and their party leaderships and paymasters he can be impeached, tried, and removed from office, but the same is true of any president.
I do have fond memories of Heathrow as a kid. Mum and dad would drive me all the way from Ilford across central London and then down the M4 several weekends a year just so that I could view the planes from the top of car park 3. Of course, back in the 1980s, parking was something like 20p for a whole afternoon
Comments
I'd adjust the poll to Clinton +8. Outliers in elections with over 3,000 polls this year would not be usual. What would you call a Rasmussen poll with Donald +3 .... Accurate ?!?
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/790887944395563008
If anyone's interested - this radio show from popular right-wing guy Mitchellviii had some great nuggets and at times rather amusing when contrasting Obama enthusiasm with Hillary. PG rated.
He's had something like 130m Twitter hits in the last month - the impact of social media on this election has been immense. Some commentators are gathering tens of thousands new followers a month.
https://youtu.be/LNrSN_g1Tso
Campaign contributions hard at work...
Clinton 49 .. Trump 41
http://files.constantcontact.com/9c83fb30501/a28d624b-bd7e-46a7-a024-573e184bd3bb.pdf
Looks fine to me. More people identify as Democrats going back 25+ years.
If you assume a true lead of 6%, and the number of polls we're getting, then with 3% MoE you'd expect a regular spread of results between zero and +12. That's pretty much what's happening.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Remember compouter?
He and Barnesian and Alistair Meeks used to have such interesting discussions on an SNP Labour coalition in 2015.
Barnesian had charts and spreadsheets and everything.
It was NAILED ON, I tell you.
Imagine a Cable v Goldsmith contest, as your you hand hovers over a ballot paper.
He would absolutely shred Zac on the economics of BREXIT as well
If he wins, so what? It reconfirms that people on the flight-path don't want Heathrow expansion, but that's a statement of the bleedin' obvious and his seat is one of 650 in the UK. Indeed, if he stands and loses it will be to a Lib Dem (who are anti-Heathrow as a party policy) or another anti-Heathrow Tory, so his losing doesn't even vaguely suggest his constituents are pro-Heathrow.
The only real point of him standing down is if he DOESN'T stand again. Then at least he sets a precedent for other MPs in future saying "if I fail to deliver promise X, I'll fall on my sword".
They won't pick him though (and he won't put his name forward). They already have a strong candidate in Sarah Olney and, although there will be a re-selection for a by-election, there's practically zero chance it'll be anyone else.
Water under the bridge, I thought that at the time for reasons I won't go in to now, Boris and Theresa doing a marvellous job, of course I would consider a job in government, etc.
What a weasel tongued, wee twat he is.
Having said all that May will be delighted if he stands as an independent. The Lib Dems will surely win comfortably otherwise in a place like Richmond.
It will be interesting if history comes to see Witney..so far dismissed as an irrelevant by-election..as the precursor that gave the LibDems credibility going into a much bigger contest. Witney is being mentioned a lot in the media today when the official script was that it would be forgotten by now.
The strongest case in point which is favourable to the GOP is West Virginia. Tonnes of Democrat republicans there.
To offer an LD perspective as I suspect we've mostly had a Conservative perspective up to now, Goldmith's resignation presents the Conservatives with a short-term problem and the LDs with a medium to long term problem.
I'll be blunt - the LDs won't win Richmond Park if Goldsmith stands. That's not to say the seat shouldn't be fought but Goldsmith's local popularity and undeniable anti-Heathrow credentials override his pro-LEAVE views which would count for less here at this time than they did at Witney.
The shorter term problem is however for the Conservatives and whether they can tolerate any old Tom, Dick or Zac disagreeing with significant parts of Government policy but still standing as Official Conservatives. May has of course tried to make the Conservative tent as large as possible but clearly there are significant internal contradictions which are going to cause the tent to deflate and eventually collapse.
The problem is if they put up a pro-Heathrow candidate against Goldsmith, Goldsmith will win which won't help May. There are no doubt pro-Heathrow elements in Richmond Park and there will be those who will vote Conservative irrespective of the candidate but Goldsmith is the ideal candidate for the Richmond Park demographic.
It will be impossible for Goldsmith or anyone who backs him to remain in the Conservative Party if there is an official Conservative candidate but without one you can keep Zac in the tent but he will have a greater legitimacy and he's not alone among Conservatives in west and south-west London.
This becomes a test of May's tent (or intent).
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1
It's the standing again that's a nonsense... "elect me and it'll reconfirm you're against Heathrow... or you could equally vote for the anti-Heathrow Lib Dems or (presumably) anti-Heathrow Tory candidate... oh, and you'll pay for the by-election cost."
Otherwise whats the point
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/790772883450568704/photo/1
Patrick Svitek – Verified account @PatrickSvitek
My back of the napkin: Early voting up by average of 57% today in Texas' five biggest counties compared to first early voting day in 2012
Maybe he's hoping for Boris's job the Mother Theresa has to sack him...
Two points. First is the dubious economics.
Second is that Trump is the REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE. Sending him to Washington will not put a bomb under the establishment. It'll irritate them but that's all. If he was standing as an independent, I could understand MM taking his side in order to be on the side of the "unrepresented", but as it is, MM looks foolish siding with a Republican against a Democrat. Although she won't put a 35% tax on Mexican-built SUVs, she is the candidate of the poor.
norman smith
norman smith @BBCNormanS
Boris Johnson declines to repeat his pledge to lie down in front of bulldozers over #heathrow
As Richmond Park was strongly pro-REMAIN in June, a pro-REMAIN anti-LHR3 candidate should fit the bill (I wonder which party that fits best ?) but Goldsmith's anti-LHR3 credentials are undeniable and if that becomes "the issue" of the by-election Goldsmith will win.
If Heathrow drops off the radar and Goldsmith is forced back on to his pro-LEAVE position, then he might begin to look vulnerable.
Harris marginal Obama (Dead heat pretty much) +20,000 votes (Houston)
Bexar +4 Obama +5000 votes (San Antonio)
Dallas +16 Obama +26078 votes (Dallas)
Travis +24 Obama +16000 votes (Austin)
May be worth a bet for Clinton to win if it's that high.
It was a pledge that only made sense if he kept open the right to stand again. It's not to punish him for his failure, it's to try to prevent and if not to punish the government for going ahead with LHR3. The idea was that with the threat of Zac causing a by-election (and probably winning against any Tory) it would weigh on Cameron's mind and maybe prevent him from greenlighting LHR. In one way it worked, Cameron never gave it the greenlight even after the Commission reported.
The entire nation pays.
It will be good for us on PB to have another angle to discuss Brexit from, since so far we have surely only barely scraped the surface.
I live under the flightpath of the only airport in England with flights through the night (East Midlands). I was a bit annoyed when they moved it to over me, and initially it woke me up, but now I no longer notice. Freight planes are older and noisier too.
Better capacity and longer hours means fewer holding patterns so less fuel wasted.
Zac's Mayoral campaign undoubtedly annoyed Liberals.
Unlike Witney, the Yellow Peril have been planning for this by election for months
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSMNGa60z4w
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/what-michael-moore-understands-about-hillary-clinton
"Then he gets to the heart of the matter, which has two parts. The first is to address Trump supporters from his own heart. He begins with a series of jokes addressing and warmly mocking “vagenda of manocide”-type masculine paranoia, culminating in jokes about the internment camps for men that would arise during a Clinton Presidency. But he then turns earnest and reads a text that, he says, he wrote that very day (and it’s actually handwritten)—one in which he addresses Trump supporters, “the dispossessed,” who are members of the “former middle class,” people who’ve lost jobs and health insurance, who may have lost their homes and their savings, and who, he says, have “lost everything but the right to vote.” Moore describes Trump as “the Molotov cocktail, the hand grenade thrown into the system that screwed them.” Moore acknowledges that many of Trump’s supporters are all the more motivated by the hatred that Trump arouses among the nation’s élites—the overlords of the institutions that have presided over these voters’ misery. "
He isn't pro Trump.
I don't doubt that there are some people in Richmond who, if polled, would support the third runway. But I doubt there are that many who care enough to feel compelled to cast their vote for someone in favour. Particularly as it is already obvious that the by-election itself is very unlikely to change the outcome.
When you look beyond Heathrow he's got real weaknesses on Brexit and the media criticism of his Mayoral campaign that should play into moderate Conservative voters' sense of unease about the May government. At this stage I would tend to agree with Mr Smithson's assessment.
They are 4-5 LD, 5-4 Zac.
Hopefully the Tories will put a pro-expansion candidate forward if Zac chooses to leave the party.
Presumably an autocorrect fail?
Meanwhile, Betfair midprices for the US election, for every candidate or non-candidate whom it's possible to lay as well as back, are as follows:
Clinton 1.205
Sanders 265
Biden 900
Trump 6.1
Pence 825
Sanders is well ahead of the lower-placed possibilities. Who's backing him? Surely if something were to happen to Clinton, her replacement would be Kaine?
1. the ability to throw the scoundrels out
2. the vote should affect the policies pursued
With the EU, neither can happen, so the Euro-sceptic anger is justified.
What's interesting is how acute his understanding of the pro-Trump viewpoint must be, given the remarkable readiness of those backers to say "exactly !"; "this is going to win us the election !", and to claim him as their own - something that might be a rational ploy on election day, but hardly two weeks out.
"Crooked Politicians" #RejectedTrumpTVshows Its time to #DrainTheSwamp
https://t.co/OP1sItuUg1
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 9.35% 1.18% 3.49% 250-259 1.98% 0.87% 1.42% 260-269 2.59% 1.31% 1.97% 270-279 3.90% 2.42% 3.37% 280-289 3.36% 2.47% 2.78% 290-299 3.69% 4.19% 4.21% 300-309 4.50% 6.24% 5.98% 310-319 5.23% 6.50% 5.82% 320-329 5.91% 8.09% 9.24% 330-339 5.47% 8.86% 6.98% 340-349 7.43% 19.04% 11.68% 350-359 8.22% 16.84% 10.74% 360-369 7.41% 7.70% 7.29% 370-379 6.18% 5.21% 6.23% 380-389 4.43% 2.88% 4.50% 390-399 3.38% 2.30% 3.25% 400 or over 16.99% 3.91% 11.04% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 86.09% 96.64% 93.12% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 339.4 339.0 341.8 Clinton 270-up 75.4 69.7 73.7 Clinton 300-up 51.3 41.9 47.3 Clinton 330-up 31.0 18.6 25.3 Trump 270-up 5.9 0.6 1.9 Trump 300-up 2.8 0.1 0.6 Trump 330-up 1.2 0.0 0.2Zac's share of the vote in Richmond Park, 2016 mayoral: 57.0%
Whether or not his campaign or his support for Brexit annoyed Liberals, it didn't much shift his support in his constituency.