Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
Oddly, there are more Mercedes than you'd expect used as cabs, and you have to wonder about the long term affect on their brand image but I dare say their quality and technology leads will see them through.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
Europhilia knows no bounds... Tony Blair calls for a second referendum to reverse Brexit 'catastrophe', calls on Remainers to mobilise.
tbh as someone who did not vote Remain, I'd not regard it as a constitutional outrage if there were a second referendum on some sort of final Brexit package.
As long as it's clear that the options are:
1. Take the deal on offer 2. Leave with no deal in place.
Blair seemed to be implying that there'd be a 'back in again' option. There won't be because there can't be.
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
Or semi-professional ebayers?
Something which has changed a lot in the recent self-employment boom is people using an online platform to perform a service, or even simply to advertise a service.
Quite how many of these people become redefined as "employees" of the service is going to be interesting.
In olden days, it never crossed anybody's minds that plumbers and electricians and boiler installers would be classified as employees of Yellow Pages. Obviously the new platforms have a degree of control over the associated workers that Yellow Pages didn't, but how much control is enough?
How does they money change hands? With Uber and AirBnB, the customer pays the company, who in turn pay the provider of the service. That's probably the key differentiator.
I'm not sure that the way the money changes hands would make sense as a means of distinguishing - it would be very easy to fiddle that around, without affecting the degree of control in the relationship. (I can also think of several industries where it is usual for a customer to pay an agency for the provision of a service by a self-employed provider who is paid by the agency minus a cut, for example driving instructor schools and private tuition. I don't think there's much doubt this is self-employment.)
Oddly, there are more Mercedes than you'd expect used as cabs, and you have to wonder about the long term affect on their brand image but I dare say their quality and technology leads will see them through.
Most taxis in Oslo are Mercedes.
Uber got shut down in Abu Dhabi last month - for being too cheap!
They work as a booking service for local 'limo' cars (Mercedes, Lexus etc) who by law have to charge at least 50% more than a local (government-operated) taxi. They got caught undercutting the taxi prices during quiet periods.
Europhilia knows no bounds... Tony Blair calls for a second referendum to reverse Brexit 'catastrophe', calls on Remainers to mobilise.
tbh as someone who did not vote Remain, I'd not regard it as a constitutional outrage if there were a second referendum on some sort of final Brexit package.
As long as it's clear that the options are:
1. Take the deal on offer 2. Leave with no deal in place.
Blair seemed to be implying that there'd be a 'back in again' option. There won't be because there can't be.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Yup.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
There was a ruling against the latter in New York earlier in the week. It had grown to such an extent that it was causing a housing shortage as investors were basically running unlicensed hotels with hundreds of rooms across the city not paying tourist taxes. Also issues with people subletting rent-controlled flats and problems with noise in nicer areas.
Like many of these things, it's okay on a small scale but it's quickly grown out of hand and they have become victims of their own success.
Quite agree with this. Like with Uber vs black cabs in terms of legal standards, I don't at all like the way people have effectively bypassed the planning system to set up what are, basically, hotels. If I were running a "by the book" hotel or B&B operation, complying with things like fire regulations, insurance requirements, and disability access, I'd be fuming - and legitimately so.
Europhilia knows no bounds... Tony Blair calls for a second referendum to reverse Brexit 'catastrophe', calls on Remainers to mobilise.
tbh as someone who did not vote Remain, I'd not regard it as a constitutional outrage if there were a second referendum on some sort of final Brexit package.
Yes, but that's not what Blair wants. He wants a "Stay in the EU" option, which isn't happening.
If there's to be a further referendum on a deal, it will be to either accept the deal or exit to WTO terms with no deal.
For all early voting (mail-in and in-person early): "registered Democrats are 7 percent behind, while registered Republicans are 2 percent behind"
By race: "Currently, whites are 72 percent of the total ballots, with blacks at 22 percent and all other races/unknown at 6 percent. White voters are 10 percent ahead of where they were from four years ago on this same day, while black voters are 20 percent behind "
For in-person early (more important as it is c. 90% of the final early voting total): "Registered Republicans are 7 percent ahead of their same-day totals for in-person voting, while registered Democrats are 8 percent behind their numbers from four years ago"
In-person AA voting continues to lag 2012 levels considerably:
% of in-person early votes that are African American
2012 2016 Day 1 37 28 Day 2 32 24 Day 3 36 27 Day 4 43 36 Day 5 33 25 Day 6 31 22 Day 7 28 21 Day 8 27 22
Look out for Saturday's number as HRC is due to give a joint rally in NC with Michelle Obama - if the numbers do not turn around, then it looks grim for HRC in NC.
Millennials making up 14% of earl voting, up from 13% yesterday.
Pardon? Can't win somewhere with an enormous majority against them in short campaign. "Perfectly entitled to ask" What on earth are you talking about?
1. What @MaxPB said: the LDs don't appear to have tried to manage expectations - they're betting the farm on fomenting a mass voter revolt against Brexit, especially the "hard" variety. If they come nowhere close to winning then what does that say about both them and their new core message?
2. Richmond Park is an ex-LD constituency, in which they are recognised as the main challengers, and where the incumbent is now an independent candidate who (a) backed Brexit in an area that voted 3:1 to Remain and (b) had his image dragged through the mud during his failed mayoral campaign. They don't even have to defeat the governing party, which has decided not to nominate anyone to stand. This is the sort of opportunity that they really need to take given that...
3. Goldsmith's majority is, of course, huge, and is the main obstacle to his removal - but this wasn't always a problem for the Liberal Democrats. What about Newbury? What about Christchurch? If, as in Witney, they can't really get close - and this time on more promising ground - then it tells us that the party is weak and no longer the force that it once was. Just as both its current position in the Commons and its dismal national polling figures suggest, and contrary to the Panglossian narrative recently spun around their local council gains.
4. Remember: whilst they don't have to overhaul 20,000+ majorities to make a meaningful recovery in Parliament, the LDs do still need to achieve substantial swings. Their 2015 collapse was so bad that there are very few marginal seats left for them to target: not counting Scotland (a likely hold in the Northern Isles, but not much chance against the powerful SNP in more than about two other seats,) analysis published by Anthony Wells suggests that - based on the revised boundaries - the party is within 10% of the notional incumbent in just 13 seats in England and Wales, in addition to the three where it still has a majority. They need to be building up their support substantially to make any real progress, especially given that other parties will be targeting what little territory the Lib Dems themselves still hold.
5. Moreover, after Witney, there is every chance that the Labour candidate will once again avoid having their vote share squeezed significantly. This is important. If the LDs are unable to consolidate left-of-centre support behind them (due to the taint of the Coalition) when facing off against Tories, yet continue to stand on a soft Left platform with a soft Left leader, then their chances of making headway in the majority of their target seats which currently return Tory MPs are greatly reduced.
And so, to modify my original question, if the Liberal Democrats can't win in Richmond Park then where do they go next?
They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.
But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.
I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.
Further you must understand the 2008 vote. Reps had something like 250000 mail lead, but Obama posted about 580000 lead in in-person over the 14-days. So while far behind he had incredible in-person votes that quickly overcame the GOP advantage. So while the Reps have a much smaller advantage now the Dems have only got less than a 40000 lead in in-person after 4 days, and most of the lead came on the first day.
The CNN article does make it clear that the Florida comparison is with 2008, not 2012.
But are you sure about that 580,000 figure for the Democrat lead for in-person early voting in 2008? This Time article suggests it was a 9% lead out of 2.6m votes, which would be more like 230,000: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/81541/
I've read the Time article, they've used the wrong figure. The Dems were almost 9% up in the TOTAL early vote, not the in-person. The mail was heavily skewed Rep by something like 15 points, but the in person was skewed Dem by even more.
If I were an EU citizen undertaking a long course of study in the UK I'd be concerned about funding guarantees. "International" students pay huge fees in the UK and don't get student loans etc. Currently, non-UK EU students don't count as "international" - in X years time, they will do, for some unknown value of X.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
Little Green Mohammed Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
Little Green Mohammed Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
Shouldn't really laugh I know, but that's quite funny. Silly rich virtue signaller finally realises that words can have consequences.
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
These numbers are mind blowing. A newly qualified lawyer in Scotland would be doing well to earn 1/5 of that latter figure.
Domestic vs international markets (look at Dublin vs Glasgow/Edinburgh salaries and prospects for an enlightening comparison). Plus, compare the chargeable hours targets....
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
Calm down, the absolute number of EU students is only down by a few hundred, I see EU students weren't that big of a share anyway. And in any case UK applicants are also down, everything is being blamed on Brexit eventhough it has nothing to do with it.
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
Calm down, the absolute number of EU students is only down by a few hundred, I see EU students weren't that big of a share anyway.
Losing EU students is probably a gain overall since loan delinquency rates are much higher for them than domestic students. Making EU students pay overseas rates will be a decent money maker for universities once we've left.
Pardon? Can't win somewhere with an enormous majority against them in short campaign. "Perfectly entitled to ask" What on earth are you talking about?
1. What @MaxPB said: the LDs don't appear to have tried to manage expectations - they're betting the farm on fomenting a mass voter revolt against Brexit, especially the "hard" variety. If they come nowhere close to winning then what does that say about both them and their new core message?
2. Richmond Park is an ex-LD constituency, in which they are recognised as the main challengers, and where the incumbent is now an independent candidate who (a) backed Brexit in an area that voted 3:1 to Remain and (b) had his image dragged through the mud during his failed mayoral campaign. They don't even have to defeat the governing party, which has decided not to nominate anyone to stand. This is the sort of opportunity that they really need to take given that...
3. Goldsmith's majority is, of course, huge, and is the main obstacle to his removal - but this wasn't always a problem for the Liberal Democrats. What about Newbury? What about Christchurch? If, as in Witney, they can't really get close - and this time on more promising ground - then it tells us that the party is weak and no longer the force that it once was.
4. Remember: whilst they don't have to overhaul 20,000+ majorities to make a meaningful recovery in Parliament, the LDs do still need to achieve substantial swings. Their 2015 collapse was so bad that there are very few marginal seats left for them to target: not counting Scotland (a likely hold in the Northern Isles, but not much chance against the powerful SNP in more than about two other seats,) analysis published by Anthony Wells suggests that - based on the revised boundaries - the party is within 10% of the notional incumbent in just 13 seats in England and Wales, in addition to the three where it still has a majority.
5. Moreover, after Witney, there is every chance that the Labour candidate will once again avoid having their vote share squeezed significantly. This is important. If the LDs are unable to consolidate left-of-centre support behind them (due to the taint of the Coalition) when facing off against Tories, yet continue to stand on a soft Left platform with a soft Left leader, then their chances of making headway in the majority of their target seats which currently return Tory MPs are greatly reduced.
And so, to modify my original question, if the Liberal Democrats can't win in Richmond Park then where do they go next?
A much better argued case that makes more sense. (I've had to snip some of it to keep within the character limit. Sorry.)
Psephologist Nate Cohn seems nigh on convinced the Democrats will win it.
He might be convinced, but the numbers are not supporting him at the moment.
Race seems to be one of the more accurate predictors of voting in NC. If the AA vote is down significantly, that almost certainly means the Democratic vote is getting hit.
Conversely, the White vote is up. They obviously do not break out voting by class / wealth but that may be a sign that previously non-registered voters are coming in - the article states that the percentage of new voters voting early in-person has been increasing during the week.
For all early voting (mail-in and in-person early): "registered Democrats are 7 percent behind, while registered Republicans are 2 percent behind"
By race: "Currently, whites are 72 percent of the total ballots, with blacks at 22 percent and all other races/unknown at 6 percent. White voters are 10 percent ahead of where they were from four years ago on this same day, while black voters are 20 percent behind "
For in-person early (more important as it is c. 90% of the final early voting total): "Registered Republicans are 7 percent ahead of their same-day totals for in-person voting, while registered Democrats are 8 percent behind their numbers from four years ago"
In-person AA voting continues to lag 2012 levels considerably:
% of in-person early votes that are African American
2012 2016 Day 1 37 28 Day 2 32 24 Day 3 36 27 Day 4 43 36 Day 5 33 25 Day 6 31 22 Day 7 28 21 Day 8 27 22
Look out for Saturday's number as HRC is due to give a joint rally in NC with Michelle Obama - if the numbers do not turn around, then it looks grim for HRC in NC.
Millennials making up 14% of earl voting, up from 13% yesterday.
Yes the fall in AA early voting is worrying for Hillary, although some signs she is getting more white and Latino support, let's see after Sunday voting.
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign in a series of tweets Thursday after new campaign emails released by WikiLeaks showed how the Democratic nominee's staffers discussed the death of her father.
“I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?” Garner tweeted along with a link to emails released by WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
“I'm vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19,” added Garner.
...
“I'm glad you had Maya on your team to explain why you won’t be USING my dad in you f-----g gun violence piece... Black woman saved your a--,” Garner added...
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to questions about Garner's latest tweet
Erica Garner has used her Twitter account to criticize the Clinton campaign before.
Calm down, the absolute number of EU students is only down by a few hundred, I see EU students weren't that big of a share anyway.
Losing EU students is probably a gain overall since loan delinquency rates are much higher for them than domestic students. Making EU students pay overseas rates will be a decent money maker for universities once we've left.
Yes. EU students are currently treated the same as UK students, having fees paid from a loan which they pay back over time. But if they leave the U.K and never see the PAYE system it can be a nightmare for the SL company to track them down. Non-EU students, on the other hand, have to pay much higher fees up front, which over time will benefit both the universities and the UK government even if there are a couple of years of uncertainty.
Miss Plato, maybe someone will apologise to her on behalf of Britain.
As Sir Edric just tweeted, having Tony Blair on your side of the argument is like having a letter of recommendation from Idi Amin.
This tosh about 'insurgency' and democracy only counting when the vote goes your way is not going to endear the two-faced grasping former Middle East peace envoy to an electorate that is, perhaps, not well-disposed towards him to begin with.
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
These numbers are mind blowing. A newly qualified lawyer in Scotland would be doing well to earn 1/5 of that latter figure.
Domestic vs international markets (look at Dublin vs Glasgow/Edinburgh salaries and prospects for an enlightening comparison). Plus, compare the chargeable hours targets....
Oh I know and I would expect a difference but wow. A second year trainee's recommended rate in Scotland is just over £21K. NQ would probably hope to earn a bit more than £30K in Edinburgh or Glasgow, a tad less elsewhere. And its not as if these employees will be sitting about.
I'm hoping my daughter (second year Scots law at Edinburgh) doesn't see these figures. Her aspirations are high enough!
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think "
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.
But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.
I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.
Further you must understand the 2008 vote. Reps had something like 250000 mail lead, but Obama posted about 580000 lead in in-person over the 14-days. So while far behind he had incredible in-person votes that quickly overcame the GOP advantage. So while the Reps have a much smaller advantage now the Dems have only got less than a 40000 lead in in-person after 4 days, and most of the lead came on the first day.
The CNN article does make it clear that the Florida comparison is with 2008, not 2012.
But are you sure about that 580,000 figure for the Democrat lead for in-person early voting in 2008? This Time article suggests it was a 9% lead out of 2.6m votes, which would be more like 230,000: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/81541/
I've read the Time article, they've used the wrong figure. The Dems were almost 9% up in the TOTAL early vote, not the in-person. The mail was heavily skewed Rep by something like 15 points, but the in person was skewed Dem by even more.
I have just checked my figures from the 2008 in-person vote, it was 1,369212 Dem 805333 Rep so about 564000 lead.
Thanks. Barring any other errors, it looks as though in 2008 the Democrats had something like a 22% lead in in-person early voting and the Republicans a 15% lead in postal early voting. And the official numbers so far this year are showing those leads are down to around 3% apiece. That makes me wonder whether we can reach any sensible conclusions at all by looking at these data.
Calm down, the absolute number of EU students is only down by a few hundred, I see EU students weren't that big of a share anyway.
Losing EU students is probably a gain overall since loan delinquency rates are much higher for them than domestic students. Making EU students pay overseas rates will be a decent money maker for universities once we've left.
Yes. EU students are currently treated the same as UK students, having fees paid from a loan which they pay back over time. But if they leave the U.K and never see the PAYE system it can be a nightmare for the SL company to track them down. Non-EU students, on the other hand, have to pay much higher fees up front, which over time will benefit both the universities and the UK government even if there are a couple of years of uncertainty.
The position is even more extreme in Scotland where EU students don't have to pay fees at all at the moment. An expectation that that will not continue will have had an impact on the number of applications to Scottish Universities.
For all early voting (mail-in and in-person early): "registered Democrats are 7 percent behind, while registered Republicans are 2 percent behind"
By race: "Currently, whites are 72 percent of the total ballots, with blacks at 22 percent and all other races/unknown at 6 percent. White voters are 10 percent ahead of where they were from four years ago on this same day, while black voters are 20 percent behind "
For in-person early (more important as it is c. 90% of the final early voting total): "Registered Republicans are 7 percent ahead of their same-day totals for in-person voting, while registered Democrats are 8 percent behind their numbers from four years ago"
In-person AA voting continues to lag 2012 levels considerably:
% of in-person early votes that are African American
2012 2016 Day 1 37 28 Day 2 32 24 Day 3 36 27 Day 4 43 36 Day 5 33 25 Day 6 31 22 Day 7 28 21 Day 8 27 22
Look out for Saturday's number as HRC is due to give a joint rally in NC with Michelle Obama - if the numbers do not turn around, then it looks grim for HRC in NC.
Millennials making up 14% of earl voting, up from 13% yesterday.
Yes the fall in AA early voting is worrying for Hillary, although some signs she is getting more white and Latino support, let's see after Sunday voting.
But
'Overall, this year's returned and accepted mail-in ballots are 82 percent of where the numbers stood four years ago this same day, with registered Republicans at 64 percent of their same-day numbers, registered Democrats at 98 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters at 111 percent.'
Also, looks like it's because less actual sites are open. more are opening up over the next few days.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
Is there any evidence that people are underestimating the votes of poor whites in the US?
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Yup.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
These numbers are mind blowing. A newly qualified lawyer in Scotland would be doing well to earn 1/5 of that latter figure.
Domestic vs international markets (look at Dublin vs Glasgow/Edinburgh salaries and prospects for an enlightening comparison). Plus, compare the chargeable hours targets....
Oh I know and I would expect a difference but wow. A second year trainee's recommended rate in Scotland is just over £21K. NQ would probably hope to earn a bit more than £30K in Edinburgh or Glasgow, a tad less elsewhere. And its not as if these employees will be sitting about.
I'm hoping my daughter (second year Scots law at Edinburgh) doesn't see these figures. Her aspirations are high enough!
Not sitting about but a world apart in terms of life extinguishing expectations. The ones who are behaving egregiously are the regional offices of the national firms. London hours, regional salaries.
'Overall, this year's returned and accepted mail-in ballots are 82 percent of where the numbers stood four years ago this same day, with registered Republicans at 64 percent of their same-day numbers, registered Democrats at 98 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters at 111 percent.'
Also, looks like it's because less actual sites are open. more are opening up over the next few days. "
619 - mail-in are far less important because they only made up c. 10% of the total early voting numbers in 2012 - in-person early voting is more important.
Agree re the opening up of sites, which is why the next few days will be interesting.
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign in a series of tweets Thursday after new campaign emails released by WikiLeaks showed how the Democratic nominee's staffers discussed the death of her father.
“I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?” Garner tweeted along with a link to emails released by WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
“I'm vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19,” added Garner.
...
“I'm glad you had Maya on your team to explain why you won’t be USING my dad in you f-----g gun violence piece... Black woman saved your a--,” Garner added...
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to questions about Garner's latest tweet
Erica Garner has used her Twitter account to criticize the Clinton campaign before.
Seriously, could you imagine what could be unearthed if we got hold of Trump's server, his staffers? Or anyones for the matter These leaks are akin to someone bugging someones phone and then releasing it. They are as bad as the phone hacking. It's a massive intrusion of privacy solely to inflict damage on one person's campaign, orchestrated through a criminal act.
Trumps pussygrabbinggate was his own big mouth being caught on an open TV mic, like Gordon Brown or Ron Atkinson.
To be honest I don't really care what people say in private between themselves. And I certainly don't condone people hacking emails and then releasing them.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
And so, to modify my original question, if the Liberal Democrats can't win in Richmond Park then where do they go next?
You seem to have developed a huge hostility to the LDs despite admitting having voted for the party in the past. I don't really understand the source or rationale behind your antipathy but in respond to your previous (too long to quote):
1) Richmond Park is an atypical by election. Since on the issue of LHR3, Goldsmith and Olney are in agreement, it is incumbent on the LDs to find an issue where the party differs from Goldsmith. Brexit is that issue and if those arguing for a "soft Brexit" (whatever that means) can be seen to be carrying some electoral strength those arguing for a "hard Brexit" (whatever that means) will be aware of the potential electoral and political consequences.
2) The LD task is made much harder by the absence of a candidate supporting the Government line - an extraordinary situation and I wonder why you aren't commenting on that instead of continually swiping at the LDs. The 3-way hypothetical poll put the LDs only 9 points behind Zac which would be much more achievable than the current 27 point deficit.
3) In Witney, the LDs started in fourth place, not second and had to regain much of the support lost in 2015. The by election was the party's best effort since the Alliance in 1983 in that seat but it has never been archetypal southern England LD territory. In Newbury David Rendel had worked into a strong second place but it was the collapse of the residual Labour vote that made his victory so comprehensive.
4) Nobody in the party underestimates the task it faces and it will take time to rebuild. The party faced a similar problem in 1970 and yet in the February 1974 election the vote rebounded strongly albeit with little return in seats. The aim in 2020 will be to maximise the efficiency of the vote.
5) The question then becomes where the disillusioned Conservatives will go from say late 2017 onwards. All Governments have a mid term and May's will be no different. We can but hope hers will be steeper and longer but we'll see. The first stage is to get the protest vote - how that can be translated to a permanent move away from the Conservatives is another question.
What should the LDs do - disband, not fight Richmond Park ? Politics doesn't work that way.
I think it's a fair ruling. Deliveroo are probably fucked though.
But lots of drivers actively like the Uber employment model (and presumably the same goes for other gig economy companies). I know, because I take Ubers all the time, and ask the drivers how they feel.
Ubers can be incredibly cheap and they open up London and other cities to people who can't afford traditional taxis, but could really use them - single mums, poor people on estate, the old. Yes it stuffs black cabs, which is sad, but I got a black cab yesterday and the window sticker said "we take contactless payments" but it turned out the driver had a contactless system... which took ten minutes to programme. So I paid cash. Black cabs have dinosaured themselves out of business.
I like Uber. I love Uber. Uber Uber Alles.
Then get a normal minicab -- cheaper and often more convenient than black cabs. No need for Uber at all. I get five or six a week. At least in London, drivers are properly licensed and their cars less than five or six years old -- the minicab trade is a lot better than it used to be a couple of decades back.
Oddly, there are more Mercedes than you'd expect used as cabs, and you have to wonder about the long term affect on their brand image but I dare say their quality and technology leads will see them through.
In London, Uber are ordinary minicabs - just with an easier and more user friendly way of hiring them and paying for them.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
No, because the states do not break down the registration numbers by income so hard to tell. However, looking at the 2012 and 2016 voter data, it looks like the uptick in white registrations is being driven by non-urban areas, so that might be an indirect indication.
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
That's interesting. I had been wondering about your motivation.
on the SCOTUS, isn't it more likely to be a big change if Trump wins? Hilary unlikely to have a sympathetic senate and congress, so would have to find candidates that would get through, whereas any super right wing headbangers would get the nod from ted cruz et al ? (is he in senate/congress? apologies for inaccuracy)
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
That is not true!
Which bit?
Labour has finished 3rd at all General Elections in Richmond since the 1970s! Even in 1997 their vote share was just 13%.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
No, because the states do not break down the registration numbers by income so hard to tell. However, looking at the 2012 and 2016 voter data, it looks like the uptick in white registrations is being driven by non-urban areas, so that might be an indirect indication.
That is for NC by the way - have not checked other states.
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
It'll depend on the state rules but remember, the voters aren't techinically electing the president; they're electing the electors. The true election will take place when the electoral college meets in the various state capitals. If a presidential candidate dies, then (again, subject to state rules), it'd still make sense to vote for the dead person on the assumption that their pledged electors will do something sensible and in line with the RNC/DNC opinion.
The presidential election is one election that can't be voided as such, as various aspects of it are laid down in the constitution. If the worst came to the worst, it'd get kicked to the House with the top three candidates going through.
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
That's interesting. I had been wondering about your motivation.
on the SCOTUS, isn't it more likely to be a big change if Trump wins? Hilary unlikely to have a sympathetic senate and congress, so would have to find candidates that would get through, whereas any super right wing headbangers would get the nod from ted cruz et al ? (is he in senate/congress? apologies for inaccuracy)
Senator Cruz will be blocking any Hillary appointment
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
That's interesting. I had been wondering about your motivation.
on the SCOTUS, isn't it more likely to be a big change if Trump wins? Hilary unlikely to have a sympathetic senate and congress, so would have to find candidates that would get through, whereas any super right wing headbangers would get the nod from ted cruz et al ? (is he in senate/congress? apologies for inaccuracy)
Senator Cruz will be blocking any Hillary appointment
they can't seriously do it for 4 years tho, can they? wouldn't a compromise have to break out?
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
It'll depend on the state rules but remember, the voters aren't techinically electing the president; they're electing the electors. The true election will take place when the electoral college meets in the various state capitals. If a presidential candidate dies, then (again, subject to state rules), it'd still make sense to vote for the dead person on the assumption that their pledged electors will do something sensible and in line with the RNC/DNC opinion.
The presidential election is one election that can't be voided as such, as various aspects of it are laid down in the constitution. If the worst came to the worst, it'd get kicked to the House with the top three candidates going through.
I'd be very surprised if it didn't go to the VP-elect, after all they were on the winning "ticket".
And so, to modify my original question, if the Liberal Democrats can't win in Richmond Park then where do they go next?
Snip
5) The question then becomes where the disillusioned Conservatives will go from say late 2017 onwards. All Governments have a mid term and May's will be no different. We can but hope hers will be steeper and longer but we'll see. The first stage is to get the protest vote - how that can be translated to a permanent move away from the Conservatives is another question.
What should the LDs do - disband, not fight Richmond Park ? Politics doesn't work that way.
On point 5.
Isn't it now much harder than in the last 30 years to muster the protest vote and guide it to one party?
There are several parties that can claim a stake in attracting the protest vote:
LibDems, UKIP (and we know there are direct LibDem to UKIP switchers), Green and then in the outer echelons of the UK we have Nationalist parties with various differing policies and names. In some respects, or to some voters, Labour may be seen as a protest vote.
Building on the protest vote feels like a ploy that is a remnant of the 1980s to 2000s, one that is now adopted by many competing parties and therefore one that will generate minimal returns compared to its past heyday as it is so split.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
I agree....keep going Plato. You add to the diversity here. But as you are aware, like me, you have to take the flak by having strong views and backing them up so vociferously.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
Must be on the first stage target for the Lib Dems, already 10% up on 2015, and undecideds at almost 20%. This has the makings of a good one. 5 weeks left and it is probably a certainty that they will eat dignificantly into that alleged 55% for Goldsmith, especially once their candidate becomes better known..
Can some please explain to me the point of this by-election in Richmond? If Goldsmith wins he promises to fight the expansion of Heathrow. Well he has been doing that for years and damn all difference has he made, why would that change now that HMG has finally made its mind up ?
On the other hand if the Lib Dems do win, it will make the life of TM's administration a bit harder, perhaps, but will still make sod all difference to the Heathrow decision.
This by-election just seems a vanity project, just like that pillock Davis who resigned and got re-elected over Human Rights or some such.
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
That is not true!
Which bit?
Labour has finished 3rd at all General Elections in Richmond since the 1970s! Even in 1997 their vote share was just 13%.
Ordinarily, you would think the LibDems have mined all the potential Labour vote. But since 2015, we've had Corbyn. There'll be some previous LibDems who only voted LibDem because there was no decent red-in-tooth-and-claw-Lefty alternative. And there will be some previous Labour voters appalled that they have a red-in-tooth-and-claw-Lefty in charge of the Party. Bit of churn both ways.
They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.
But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.
I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.
Further you must understand the 2008 vote. Reps had something like 250000 mail lead, but Obama posted about 580000 lead in in-person over the 14-days. So while far behind he had incredible in-person votes that quickly overcame the GOP advantage. So while the Reps have a much smaller advantage now the Dems have only got less than a 40000 lead in in-person after 4 days, and most of the lead came on the first day.
The CNN article does make it clear that the Florida comparison is with 2008, not 2012.
But are you sure about that 580,000 figure for the Democrat lead for in-person early voting in 2008? This Time article suggests it was a 9% lead out of 2.6m votes, which would be more like 230,000: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/81541/
I've read the Time article, they've used the wrong figure. The Dems were almost 9% up in the TOTAL early vote, not the in-person. The mail was heavily skewed Rep by something like 15 points, but the in person was skewed Dem by even more.
I have just checked my figures from the 2008 in-person vote, it was 1,369212 Dem 805333 Rep so about 564000 lead.
Thanks. Barring any other errors, it looks as though in 2008 the Democrats had something like a 22% lead in in-person early voting and the Republicans a 15% lead in postal early voting. And the official numbers so far this year are showing those leads are down to around 3% apiece. That makes me wonder whether we can reach any sensible conclusions at all by looking at these data.
Yeah the vote is very different this year. The Dems have come out hard on mail, but they are doing disproportionately worse so far in-person so it isn't as good for them as it would appear at first glance.
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
Anecdote: At the Vote Leave campaign launch I was sitting next to a lad from South Asia who was there because he would have to be sent home when he got to the end of his course while his EU classmates could stay. He invited me down to his Junior Doctor picket line next day btw. He didn't have a vote, I assume, but wanted to campaign for a level playing field. (as did I)
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
It'll depend on the state rules but remember, the voters aren't techinically electing the president; they're electing the electors. The true election will take place when the electoral college meets in the various state capitals. If a presidential candidate dies, then (again, subject to state rules), it'd still make sense to vote for the dead person on the assumption that their pledged electors will do something sensible and in line with the RNC/DNC opinion.
The presidential election is one election that can't be voided as such, as various aspects of it are laid down in the constitution. If the worst came to the worst, it'd get kicked to the House with the top three candidates going through.
I'd be very surprised if it didn't go to the VP-elect, after all they were on the winning "ticket".
I studied the US constitution at Uni...it's such a thing of beauty. Their corporate legal framework is superb too.
Ultimately, even the election of a Trump would cause little damage. The organs of the state would simply close rank and leave him flapping around ineffectually whilst government carries on much as it has done these last few years, a bit ineffectual on the whole.
Little Green Mohammed Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
Stone. Heart. Laugh.
i dunno. makes me feel a bit old and sad that this kind of discourse is now out in the open even lauded. I'd feel the same if similar happened to Katie Hopkins btw. (probably it does).
Can some please explain to me the point of this by-election in Richmond? If Goldsmith wins he promises to fight the expansion of Heathrow. Well he has been doing that for years and damn all difference has he made, why would that change now that HMG has finally made its mind up ?
On the other hand if the Lib Dems do win, it will make the life of TM's administration a bit harder, perhaps, but will still make sod all difference to the Heathrow decision.
This by-election just seems a vanity project, just like that pillock Davis who resigned and got re-elected over Human Rights or some such.
Nail hits head. £200k of taxpayers money down the Swanny. Nothing achieved at all.
Most interesting question Zac and the association, has to answer is what they'll do at the general.
I have decided to spend the rest of the afternoon creating a Nate Silver type simulation of the Richmond Park by election based on a number of assumptions. I will do 1000 simulations and use a rectangular distribution (for ease) as, by the central limit theorem, the sum will approximate a normal distribution.
My assumptions are as follows:
LibDem will take between 10 and 12% off Lab and Green. (Lab/Grn totalled 18.2% last time). Zac will take 1-2% off UKIP (UKIP 4.2% last time but well down in latest poll) LibDem will switch 10-15% of the Tory vote on account of Brexit. Turnout for Zac will be 47-53% Turnout for LibDem will be 53-57% based on differential in enthusiasm. (NB Witney 46.8% turnout)
Applying the mean of all those assumptions gives the following result:
Zac 18,150 LD 17,750
But there will be a spread of possibilities and that is what I want to investigate. I will also fine tune the assumptions as I get more info and insights. If there is any interest, I will publish the results.
'Overall, this year's returned and accepted mail-in ballots are 82 percent of where the numbers stood four years ago this same day, with registered Republicans at 64 percent of their same-day numbers, registered Democrats at 98 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters at 111 percent.'
Also, looks like it's because less actual sites are open. more are opening up over the next few days.
"
619 - mail-in are far less important because they only made up c. 10% of the total early voting numbers in 2012 - in-person early voting is more important.
Agree re the opening up of sites, which is why the next few days will be interesting.
Yeah, true. I would say a big lead in postal votes is important for the Dems though.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
I agree....keep going Plato. You add to the diversity here. But as you are aware, like me, you have to take the flak by having strong views and backing them up so vociferously.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
I remember when I was virtually the only eurosceptic on here, back in about 2005. I was certainly the only one who would bang on and on about it, understandably boring lots of other pb-ers. I would get scoffed at, yawned at, and Nick P would chortle at me, politely, and so forth.
And look where we are now.
A chilling lesson for us all, but a matter of celebration for the few isolated Corbynite voices on PB.
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
It'll depend on the state rules but remember, the voters aren't techinically electing the president; they're electing the electors. The true election will take place when the electoral college meets in the various state capitals. If a presidential candidate dies, then (again, subject to state rules), it'd still make sense to vote for the dead person on the assumption that their pledged electors will do something sensible and in line with the RNC/DNC opinion.
The presidential election is one election that can't be voided as such, as various aspects of it are laid down in the constitution. If the worst came to the worst, it'd get kicked to the House with the top three candidates going through.
I'd be very surprised if it didn't go to the VP-elect, after all they were on the winning "ticket".
I studied the US constitution at Uni...it's such a thing of beauty. Their corporate legal framework is superb too.
Ultimately, even the election of a Trump would cause little damage. The organs of the state would simply close rank and leave him flapping around ineffectually whilst government carries on much as it has done these last few years, a bit ineffectual on the whole.
if only the eu had even aspired to make their constitution a work of poetry (and less that 8 million words) we might be somewhere different (equally we might not. and we prob. should have had the referendum on Lisbon..., wasn't that lib dem policy or am i hallucinating)
Little Green Mohammed Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
Stone. Heart. Laugh.
i dunno. makes me feel a bit old and sad that this kind of discourse is now out in the open even lauded. I'd feel the same if similar happened to Katie Hopkins btw. (probably it does).
Oh gawd. I'm sure far more offensive things have been done and said in black taxis, long before Brexit. Indeed I've personally done and said some of them, myself.
London seems such a pleasant place. I do wonder why I don't move there.
Can some please explain to me the point of this by-election in Richmond? If Goldsmith wins he promises to fight the expansion of Heathrow. Well he has been doing that for years and damn all difference has he made, why would that change now that HMG has finally made its mind up ?
On the other hand if the Lib Dems do win, it will make the life of TM's administration a bit harder, perhaps, but will still make sod all difference to the Heathrow decision.
This by-election just seems a vanity project, just like that pillock Davis who resigned and got re-elected over Human Rights or some such.
Nail hits head. £200k of taxpayers money down the Swanny. Nothing achieved at all.
Most interesting question Zac and the association, has to answer is what they'll do at the general.
What the anti-Heathrow expansion campaigners would want is an affirmation that being anti-Heathrow expansion is popular. The 3rd runway in not yet a done deal and then there is the inevitable next expansion for Heathrow beyond that.
That is how it will be seen from that point of view.
Of course, the promise is damned silly, but there we are.
Chap seems to be a total prick to me, but he is very wealthy so I shouldn't be surprised that he is indulging his hobby.
If I lived in the constituency I think that I'd be voting for the party most likely to beat the jumped-up trustafarian.
I do not have a problem with wealthy people, even very wealthy people, involving themselves in politics but when they do I expect them to take it seriously and not ponce about on some irrelevant ego trip.
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
That is not true!
Which bit?
Labour has finished 3rd at all General Elections in Richmond since the 1970s! Even in 1997 their vote share was just 13%.
I have decided to spend the rest of the afternoon creating a Nate Silver type simulation of the Richmond Park by election based on a number of assumptions. I will do 1000 simulations and use a rectangular distribution (for ease) as, by the central limit theorem, the sum will approximate a normal distribution.
My assumptions are as follows:
LibDem will take between 10 and 12% off Lab and Green. (Lab/Grn totalled 18.2% last time). Zac will take 1-2% off UKIP (UKIP 4.2% last time but well down in latest poll) LibDem will switch 10-15% of the Tory vote on account of Brexit. Turnout for Zac will be 47-53% Turnout for LibDem will be 53-57% based on differential in enthusiasm. (NB Witney 46.8% turnout)
Applying the mean of all those assumptions gives the following result:
Zac 18,150 LD 17,750
But there will be a spread of possibilities and that is what I want to investigate. I will also fine tune the assumptions as I get more info and insights. If there is any interest, I will publish the results.
Sounds interesting. But are the Greens standing? Zac is former editor of Ecologist and all that. Him and Caroline Lucas could work together on some stuff once he is returned as an independent Environmental-Conservative.
"Yeah the vote is very different this year. The Dems have come out hard on mail, but they are doing disproportionately worse so far in-person so it isn't as good for them as it would appear at first glance."
Brokenwheel, could you send me the links to where you are getting the Florida data - I would be interested to take a look.
Also, someone on here posted a tweet from a US source yesterday about a pattern emerging re more white liberals / Hispanics for HRC and fewer AAs. Could anyone repost? I cannot find it in my history but when I looked at the author's other tweets, it was suggesting that AA early voting in Virginia was also sharply down.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
No, because the states do not break down the registration numbers by income so hard to tell. However, looking at the 2012 and 2016 voter data, it looks like the uptick in white registrations is being driven by non-urban areas, so that might be an indirect indication.
Trump getting the six-fingered banjo-playing vote?
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
No, because the states do not break down the registration numbers by income so hard to tell. However, looking at the 2012 and 2016 voter data, it looks like the uptick in white registrations is being driven by non-urban areas, so that might be an indirect indication.
Trump getting the six-fingered banjo-playing vote?
Who will be squealing like a pig come November 9th?
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
Anecdote: At the Vote Leave campaign launch I was sitting next to a lad from South Asia who was there because he would have to be sent home when he got to the end of his course while his EU classmates could stay. He invited me down to his Junior Doctor picket line next day btw. He didn't have a vote, I assume, but wanted to campaign for a level playing field. (as did I)
Welcome to PB, LP.
He was picketing so his EU colleagues could be sent home too?
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
I agree....keep going Plato. You add to the diversity here. But as you are aware, like me, you have to take the flak by having strong views and backing them up so vociferously.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
I remember when I was virtually the only eurosceptic on here, back in about 2005. I was certainly the only one who would bang on and on about it, understandably boring lots of other pb-ers. I would get scoffed at, yawned at, and Nick P would chortle at me, politely, and so forth.
And look where we are now.
Between then and now you did become a Eurofederalist for a while too. Although you might just have been having a laugh.
Little Green Mohammed Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
Stone. Heart. Laugh.
i dunno. makes me feel a bit old and sad that this kind of discourse is now out in the open even lauded. I'd feel the same if similar happened to Katie Hopkins btw. (probably it does).
Oh gawd. I'm sure far more offensive things have been done and said in black taxis, long before Brexit. Indeed I've personally done and said some of them, myself.
ah mebbe so. I'm not frm that london, after all [I wasn't thinking of brexit in particular btw. just the perceived coarsening of public discourse. maybe it's just that it's all on twitter. the only certainty is I'm 45 and getting older by the day, dammit]
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
What Socrates forgot was the non-elite of Athens had
- Just lived through the Thirty Tyrants - Noticed that the Thirty were strangely congruent with the pupils of Socrates.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
I agree....keep going Plato. You add to the diversity here. But as you are aware, like me, you have to take the flak by having strong views and backing them up so vociferously.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
I remember when I was virtually the only eurosceptic on here, back in about 2005. I was certainly the only one who would bang on and on about it, understandably boring lots of other pb-ers. I would get scoffed at, yawned at, and Nick P would chortle at me, politely, and so forth.
And look where we are now.
What's great about this site we have all sorts of views. I like to think of Plato as sitting on the far end of one of Nate Silver's fat tail distributions shouting 'you are all wrong, this is like Brexit and the pollsters are f*****'
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
Anecdote: At the Vote Leave campaign launch I was sitting next to a lad from South Asia who was there because he would have to be sent home when he got to the end of his course while his EU classmates could stay. He invited me down to his Junior Doctor picket line next day btw. He didn't have a vote, I assume, but wanted to campaign for a level playing field. (as did I)
Welcome to PB, LP.
He was picketing so his EU colleagues could be sent home too?
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
Anecdote: At the Vote Leave campaign launch I was sitting next to a lad from South Asia who was there because he would have to be sent home when he got to the end of his course while his EU classmates could stay. He invited me down to his Junior Doctor picket line next day btw. He didn't have a vote, I assume, but wanted to campaign for a level playing field. (as did I)
Welcome to PB, LP.
He was picketing so his EU colleagues could be sent home too?
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
"
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
That's kind of you - I'm investing so much time in US politics because I believe - like Brexit - it's a pivotal change agenda. If Hillary wins - it's a huge shift for decades re SCOTUS and immigration that will alter the whole persona of the America I know and love.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
I agree....keep going Plato. You add to the diversity here. But as you are aware, like me, you have to take the flak by having strong views and backing them up so vociferously.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
I remember when I was virtually the only eurosceptic on here, back in about 2005. I was certainly the only one who would bang on and on about it, understandably boring lots of other pb-ers. I would get scoffed at, yawned at, and Nick P would chortle at me, politely, and so forth.
And look where we are now.
Exactly....look where we are now. And I for one remember your endless obsession with the EU.
I was going to continue that Brexit represents a much more profound shift than a Trump victory ever could because of the US constitution. In the UK we have relied on the stability of Parliamentary democracy to avoid extremism. Once that was bypassed through that ridiculous plebiscite, we have inadvertently let in extremist ideologues to trash the place up.
Re the comparisons with Trump and Brexit - the big unstated reason why you get 6/1 on the day for Brexit was not because what the polls said or that undecideds would break for Remain etc but because there was an unsaid, but very powerful and snobby belief that Bob in his council flat would not get off his fat lazy ar*e and make it down to the polling station. All the voting experts pontificated that the plebs would not bother to vote. Rather a big miscalculation.
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
Is there any evidence for this?
For what? That the Remain campaign thought that the WWC would not get off their backsides? Go back and look at the commentary about the demographics (C2/DE) that were heavily pro-Brexit and their lack of propensity tovote.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
But is there any evidence the wwc in swing States have registered in higher numbers?
No, because the states do not break down the registration numbers by income so hard to tell. However, looking at the 2012 and 2016 voter data, it looks like the uptick in white registrations is being driven by non-urban areas, so that might be an indirect indication.
Trump getting the six-fingered banjo-playing vote?
Who will be squealing like a pig come November 9th?
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
That is not true!
Which bit?
Labour has finished 3rd at all General Elections in Richmond since the 1970s! Even in 1997 their vote share was just 13%.
Ordinarily, you would think the LibDems have mined all the potential Labour vote. But since 2015, we've had Corbyn. There'll be some previous LibDems who only voted LibDem because there was no decent red-in-tooth-and-claw-Lefty alternative. And there will be some previous Labour voters appalled that they have a red-in-tooth-and-claw-Lefty in charge of the Party. Bit of churn both ways.
The Labour vote in RP in 2010 was 5% and the Green vote was 1%. It was a very effective squeeze by the LibDems who came within 4,000 of winning.
In 2015, the Labour vote bounced up to 12.3% and the Green vote up to 6%. It added about 11,000 to Zac's majority. Much of that hopefully will now come back to the LibDems.
Must be on the first stage target for the Lib Dems, already 10% up on 2015, and undecideds at almost 20%. This has the makings of a good one. 5 weeks left and it is probably a certainty that they will eat dignificantly into that alleged 55% for Goldsmith, especially once their candidate becomes better known..
Why is it on this board that people think that Zacs maj has to go below 10000. Isnt there a possibility it may go up no matter how unpalatable prospect may be to the likes of OGH,Mark Senior or Barnesian. Why is it a given that it has got to be close. I know the LDs have to push that narrative to make people think it will be close to encourage undecideds but im not So sure it will work.
Comments
It seems to me that people are making the same, implicit snobbish comment on the US WWC in this election i.e. that Billy Bob is too high on methadone in his trailer to have registered and to have voted.
As they say, assumptions are the mother of....
1. Take the deal on offer
2. Leave with no deal in place.
Blair seemed to be implying that there'd be a 'back in again' option. There won't be because there can't be.
They work as a booking service for local 'limo' cars (Mercedes, Lexus etc) who by law have to charge at least 50% more than a local (government-operated) taxi. They got caught undercutting the taxi prices during quiet periods.
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
If there's to be a further referendum on a deal, it will be to either accept the deal or exit to WTO terms with no deal.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/791786710292103168
For all early voting (mail-in and in-person early): "registered Democrats are 7 percent behind, while registered Republicans are 2 percent behind"
By race: "Currently, whites are 72 percent of the total ballots, with blacks at 22 percent and all other races/unknown at 6 percent. White voters are 10 percent ahead of where they were from four years ago on this same day, while black voters are 20 percent behind "
For in-person early (more important as it is c. 90% of the final early voting total): "Registered Republicans are 7 percent ahead of their same-day totals for in-person voting, while registered Democrats are 8 percent behind their numbers from four years ago"
In-person AA voting continues to lag 2012 levels considerably:
% of in-person early votes that are African American
2012 2016
Day 1 37 28
Day 2 32 24
Day 3 36 27
Day 4 43 36
Day 5 33 25
Day 6 31 22
Day 7 28 21
Day 8 27 22
Look out for Saturday's number as HRC is due to give a joint rally in NC with Michelle Obama - if the numbers do not turn around, then it looks grim for HRC in NC.
Millennials making up 14% of earl voting, up from 13% yesterday.
2. Richmond Park is an ex-LD constituency, in which they are recognised as the main challengers, and where the incumbent is now an independent candidate who (a) backed Brexit in an area that voted 3:1 to Remain and (b) had his image dragged through the mud during his failed mayoral campaign. They don't even have to defeat the governing party, which has decided not to nominate anyone to stand. This is the sort of opportunity that they really need to take given that...
3. Goldsmith's majority is, of course, huge, and is the main obstacle to his removal - but this wasn't always a problem for the Liberal Democrats. What about Newbury? What about Christchurch? If, as in Witney, they can't really get close - and this time on more promising ground - then it tells us that the party is weak and no longer the force that it once was. Just as both its current position in the Commons and its dismal national polling figures suggest, and contrary to the Panglossian narrative recently spun around their local council gains.
4. Remember: whilst they don't have to overhaul 20,000+ majorities to make a meaningful recovery in Parliament, the LDs do still need to achieve substantial swings. Their 2015 collapse was so bad that there are very few marginal seats left for them to target: not counting Scotland (a likely hold in the Northern Isles, but not much chance against the powerful SNP in more than about two other seats,) analysis published by Anthony Wells suggests that - based on the revised boundaries - the party is within 10% of the notional incumbent in just 13 seats in England and Wales, in addition to the three where it still has a majority. They need to be building up their support substantially to make any real progress, especially given that other parties will be targeting what little territory the Lib Dems themselves still hold.
5. Moreover, after Witney, there is every chance that the Labour candidate will once again avoid having their vote share squeezed significantly. This is important. If the LDs are unable to consolidate left-of-centre support behind them (due to the taint of the Coalition) when facing off against Tories, yet continue to stand on a soft Left platform with a soft Left leader, then their chances of making headway in the majority of their target seats which currently return Tory MPs are greatly reduced.
And so, to modify my original question, if the Liberal Democrats can't win in Richmond Park then where do they go next?
http://www.electproject.org/2008_early_vote
I have just checked my figures from the 2008 in-person vote, it was 1,369212 Dem 805333 Rep so about 564000 lead.
Funnily enough, I cannot find any quotes from Cameron, Osborne et al saying "Don't worry, the plebs are too fuc*ing lazy"
Little Green Mohammed
Well you did call everyone who you don't agree with as Nazis .. I'm surprised you are bleating that he refused you https://t.co/Q1WuSJSPsh
Lily Allen
Just tried to get in a black cab with my kids. The driver looked at me and said , 'find an immigrant to drive you you stupid tart'
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU
Psephologist Nate Cohn seems nigh on convinced the Democrats will win it.
Medicine courses, at "home" (UK or, at present, EU) fee levels, are MASSIVELY subsidised. Students don't pay anything approaching the true cost.
Is there a big difference in the the rates of graduates from British medical schools actually staying and working in Britain between (a) UK nationals, (b) non-UK EU nationals, (c) non-EU international students?
A substantial proportion of British medical grads either don't go into medicine as a career at all, or go overseas to work. But it wouldn't surprise me if that rate was much higher among graduates who are not UK nationals, e.g. if they preferred to study here because we have better universities (plus English language, useful if they want to work elsewhere like the USA later) but either intended to return to their home country to work, or alternatively see themselves as highly internationally mobile (and pretty much by definition, someone studying here who comes from overseas is internationally mobile).
If this is the case (speculative if) then we might benefit from a reduction in EU students taking up the limited, subsidised places on British medical courses. Hard to see a benefit from declining numbers of non-EU international students, though, since they are paying for the degree and are effectively an export industry.
(I've had to snip some of it to keep within the character limit. Sorry.)
Answer to your question - the next by election.
Race seems to be one of the more accurate predictors of voting in NC. If the AA vote is down significantly, that almost certainly means the Democratic vote is getting hit.
Conversely, the White vote is up. They obviously do not break out voting by class / wealth but that may be a sign that previously non-registered voters are coming in - the article states that the percentage of new voters voting early in-person has been increasing during the week.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/erica-garner-rips-clinton-camp-emails-father-death-article-1.2847478
Erica Garner, the daughter of police chokehold victim Eric Garner, ripped the Hillary Clinton campaign in a series of tweets Thursday after new campaign emails released by WikiLeaks showed how the Democratic nominee's staffers discussed the death of her father.
“I’m troubled by the revelation that you and this campaign actually discussed ‘using’ Eric Garner … Why would you want to ‘use my dad?” Garner tweeted along with a link to emails released by WikiLeaks. “These people will co opt anything to push their agenda. Police violence is not the same as gun violence.
“I'm vey (sic) interested to know exactly what @CoreyCiorciari meant when he said ‘I know we have an Erica Garner problem’ in the #PodestaEmails19,” added Garner.
...
“I'm glad you had Maya on your team to explain why you won’t be USING my dad in you f-----g gun violence piece... Black woman saved your a--,” Garner added...
A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to questions about Garner's latest tweet
Erica Garner has used her Twitter account to criticize the Clinton campaign before.
As Sir Edric just tweeted, having Tony Blair on your side of the argument is like having a letter of recommendation from Idi Amin.
This tosh about 'insurgency' and democracy only counting when the vote goes your way is not going to endear the two-faced grasping former Middle East peace envoy to an electorate that is, perhaps, not well-disposed towards him to begin with.
I'm hoping my daughter (second year Scots law at Edinburgh) doesn't see these figures. Her aspirations are high enough!
PB liberals are their own worst enemy here - they detest Trump and the Deplorables and dismiss most of Hillary issues because it's inconvenient.
I can't be bothered with them and hence post less - if some want to bathe in self-righteousness and smuggery - and insult me too - why bother?
Let them group think
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
'Overall, this year's returned and accepted mail-in ballots are 82 percent of where the numbers stood four years ago this same day, with registered Republicans at 64 percent of their same-day numbers, registered Democrats at 98 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters at 111 percent.'
Also, looks like it's because less actual sites are open. more are opening up over the next few days.
'Overall, this year's returned and accepted mail-in ballots are 82 percent of where the numbers stood four years ago this same day, with registered Republicans at 64 percent of their same-day numbers, registered Democrats at 98 percent, and registered unaffiliated voters at 111 percent.'
Also, looks like it's because less actual sites are open. more are opening up over the next few days. "
619 - mail-in are far less important because they only made up c. 10% of the total early voting numbers in 2012 - in-person early voting is more important.
Agree re the opening up of sites, which is why the next few days will be interesting.
These leaks are akin to someone bugging someones phone and then releasing it. They are as bad as the phone hacking. It's a massive intrusion of privacy solely to inflict damage on one person's campaign, orchestrated through a criminal act.
Trumps pussygrabbinggate was his own big mouth being caught on an open TV mic, like Gordon Brown or Ron Atkinson.
To be honest I don't really care what people say in private between themselves. And I certainly don't condone people hacking emails and then releasing them.
I'm doing all I can to help those who feel this is a watershed and very dangerous culturally.
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-EVENING-STANDARD-Richmond-Park-by-election-data-tables-281016-1.pdf
Points of note:
Effective sample size is 203
75% of Remainers certain to vote; 66% of Leavers certain to vote
Greens have almost all come over to the LibDems.
Top US problems for Democrats & Republicans. @IpsosMORI https://t.co/2CucxqGDWY
Nice graphic
1) Richmond Park is an atypical by election. Since on the issue of LHR3, Goldsmith and Olney are in agreement, it is incumbent on the LDs to find an issue where the party differs from Goldsmith. Brexit is that issue and if those arguing for a "soft Brexit" (whatever that means) can be seen to be carrying some electoral strength those arguing for a "hard Brexit" (whatever that means) will be aware of the potential electoral and political consequences.
2) The LD task is made much harder by the absence of a candidate supporting the Government line - an extraordinary situation and I wonder why you aren't commenting on that instead of continually swiping at the LDs. The 3-way hypothetical poll put the LDs only 9 points behind Zac which would be much more achievable than the current 27 point deficit.
3) In Witney, the LDs started in fourth place, not second and had to regain much of the support lost in 2015. The by election was the party's best effort since the Alliance in 1983 in that seat but it has never been archetypal southern England LD territory. In Newbury David Rendel had worked into a strong second place but it was the collapse of the residual Labour vote that made his victory so comprehensive.
4) Nobody in the party underestimates the task it faces and it will take time to rebuild. The party faced a similar problem in 1970 and yet in the February 1974 election the vote rebounded strongly albeit with little return in seats. The aim in 2020 will be to maximise the efficiency of the vote.
5) The question then becomes where the disillusioned Conservatives will go from say late 2017 onwards. All Governments have a mid term and May's will be no different. We can but hope hers will be steeper and longer but we'll see. The first stage is to get the protest vote - how that can be translated to a permanent move away from the Conservatives is another question.
What should the LDs do - disband, not fight Richmond Park ? Politics doesn't work that way.
on the SCOTUS, isn't it more likely to be a big change if Trump wins? Hilary unlikely to have a sympathetic senate and congress, so would have to find candidates that would get through, whereas any super right wing headbangers would get the nod from ted cruz et al ? (is he in senate/congress? apologies for inaccuracy)
The presidential election is one election that can't be voided as such, as various aspects of it are laid down in the constitution. If the worst came to the worst, it'd get kicked to the House with the top three candidates going through.
Isn't it now much harder than in the last 30 years to muster the protest vote and guide it to one party?
There are several parties that can claim a stake in attracting the protest vote:
LibDems, UKIP (and we know there are direct LibDem to UKIP switchers), Green and then in the outer echelons of the UK we have Nationalist parties with various differing policies and names. In some respects, or to some voters, Labour may be seen as a protest vote.
Building on the protest vote feels like a ploy that is a remnant of the 1980s to 2000s, one that is now adopted by many competing parties and therefore one that will generate minimal returns compared to its past heyday as it is so split.
FWIW.....I think the election of Trump presents a much more existential threat to the right in the USA because within 2 years the Democrats will have shut out all the levers of Government and left him isolated, and the GOP decimated.
Your SCOTUS fear is slightly paranoid. Those judges have a habit of becoming quite independent thinkers, and Hillary will in all likelihood pick moderates much like Obama. A Hillary victory gives the chance for GOP to regroup around someone like Paul Ryan, and come back. A Trump victory could sink the party within months.
This has the makings of a good one. 5 weeks left and it is probably a certainty that they will eat dignificantly into that alleged 55% for Goldsmith, especially once their candidate becomes better known..
On the other hand if the Lib Dems do win, it will make the life of TM's administration a bit harder, perhaps, but will still make sod all difference to the Heathrow decision.
This by-election just seems a vanity project, just like that pillock Davis who resigned and got re-elected over Human Rights or some such.
Of course, the promise is damned silly, but there we are.
Ultimately, even the election of a Trump would cause little damage. The organs of the state would simply close rank and leave him flapping around ineffectually whilst government carries on much as it has done these last few years, a bit ineffectual on the whole.
Most interesting question Zac and the association, has to answer is what they'll do at the general.
My assumptions are as follows:
LibDem will take between 10 and 12% off Lab and Green. (Lab/Grn totalled 18.2% last time).
Zac will take 1-2% off UKIP (UKIP 4.2% last time but well down in latest poll)
LibDem will switch 10-15% of the Tory vote on account of Brexit.
Turnout for Zac will be 47-53%
Turnout for LibDem will be 53-57% based on differential in enthusiasm.
(NB Witney 46.8% turnout)
Applying the mean of all those assumptions gives the following result:
Zac 18,150
LD 17,750
But there will be a spread of possibilities and that is what I want to investigate. I will also fine tune the assumptions as I get more info and insights. If there is any interest, I will publish the results.
Clinton 48 .. Trump 44
https://twitter.com/ppppolls
That is how it will be seen from that point of view.
If I lived in the constituency I think that I'd be voting for the party most likely to beat the jumped-up trustafarian.
I do not have a problem with wealthy people, even very wealthy people, involving themselves in politics but when they do I expect them to take it seriously and not ponce about on some irrelevant ego trip.
Bah! I am going to go and groom my cat.
http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog
Brokenwheel, could you send me the links to where you are getting the Florida data - I would be interested to take a look.
Also, someone on here posted a tweet from a US source yesterday about a pattern emerging re more white liberals / Hispanics for HRC and fewer AAs. Could anyone repost? I cannot find it in my history but when I looked at the author's other tweets, it was suggesting that AA early voting in Virginia was also sharply down.
He was picketing so his EU colleagues could be sent home too?
Keep going, Plato - we need a variety of opinions to make us see new things.
As your friend Socrates said in his trial "The most stupid people are those that think they know everything because they do not realise that they in fact know nothing"
What Socrates forgot was the non-elite of Athens had
- Just lived through the Thirty Tyrants
- Noticed that the Thirty were strangely congruent with the pupils of Socrates.
I was going to continue that Brexit represents a much more profound shift than a Trump victory ever could because of the US constitution. In the UK we have relied on the stability of Parliamentary democracy to avoid extremism. Once that was bypassed through that ridiculous plebiscite, we have inadvertently let in extremist ideologues to trash the place up.
In 2015, the Labour vote bounced up to 12.3% and the Green vote up to 6%. It added about 11,000 to Zac's majority. Much of that hopefully will now come back to the LibDems.
Why is it a given that it has got to be close.
I know the LDs have to push that narrative to make people think it will be close to encourage undecideds but im not
So sure it will work.