Hillary's big collapse seems to be with the over $75K voters.
A bit of the change seems to be likelihood to vote with Rs heading upwards.
Florida presumably has its fair share of over $75K voters.
Interesting election - mainly due to the collapse in trust in election polling in the Uk - perhaps US polling has not suffered the same setbacks - or perhaps it was always crap.
The picking of the entrails from the gazed navels may go on for a while.
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
The point really wasn't that Clinton is still ahead, but that you can prove anything by taking selected polls.
The cherry picking on here has reached insane levels. It's a betting site for god's sake. I suspect the Trump rampers never, ever bet.
If you're betting you should be glad for people who disagree with you, all the moreso if you're correct.
If you're right but everyone else agrees with you then you won't make money betting as the odds will be terrible.
IIRC Paddy Power said 90% of their small bets were going on Trump yesterday. Believe or not!
And they paid out for Clinton a couple of weeks ago. One assumes for relatively small money at the time, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
You can almost certainly assume it was much smaller money than their weekly Racing Post advertising budget.
Absolutely. I'm sure they have a 'trader' in their marketing department that can quantify the free publicity on these things. Most of their Hillary bets would have been at 1/4 and 2/9 anyway.
"Ukip activists should sign up to train as teachers so that they can influence what children are taught from an early age."
Although many teachers don't often bring their politics into the classroom, I could have guessed the voting patterns of several of my teachers at grammar school in the 1960s. In that era, they were generally for Queen, country and the Conservatives.
As I switched to science as quickly as possible, it faded quickly, but in the Micky Mouse sciences (sociology et al), it can become a matter of personal interpretation. The ones I bumped into at university from 1967 onwards were often obvious left-wingers, but that's less important. We weren't too bothered about safe spaces.
I meet young family members and their friends and some do echo the prevailing ethos as if it were the holy grail. I assume many will grow out of it anyway.
The point however is that encouraging people to go into teaching so they can influence young kids in a UKIP-direction is an appalling thing for a politician to be suggesting.
The teaching profession(state) is stuffed full of lefties .. I doubt the espouse Tory policies in their thinking, as do teachers in public school
There may be a confusion here between the public face, through the NUT, and teaching staff generally.
On reflection I guess you are right, in the same way the BMA has been taken over by a bunch of lefties.
Teaching (and maybe medicine) might be professions that tend to attract more socially-minded and hence left wing people, but I doubt many of them joined their profession because they wanted to promulgate their political outlook amongst school children. Which is the point here.
Nope - not going to accept the premise of that supposition. Being socially minded is nothing to do with left and right. Being left wing involves seeing class as the major cleavage in our country and wanting to correct it through state intervention.
For socialists, maybe, but not for liberals or greens.
Despite your assertion, my experience has been that those occupations that involve working with people in a supportive context, whether teaching, nursing or social work, tend to attract people with a more left wing mindset.
What about the Tories who are so socially minded that they pay the taxes to pay for state sponsored care roles?
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to illustrate the importance of using averages rather than selected polls!
National OCT. 20-NOV. 1 RAND (American Life Panel) (2,269) C: 44% T: 35% Clinton +9
Arizona OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (656) C: 38% T: 33% Clinton +5 Colorado OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (637) C: 43% T: 28% Clinton +15 Florida OCT. 25-30 TargetSmart/William & Mary (718) C: 48% T: 40% Clinton +8 Iowa OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (429) C: 38% T: 30% Clinton +8 Maine’s 2nd District OCT. 28-30 Emerson College (375) C: 44% T: 42% Clinton +2 Michigan OCT. 31 Mitchell Research & Communications (737) C: 50% T: 43% Clinton +7 Minnesota OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (773) C: 46% T: 37% Clinton +9 Nevada OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 44% T: 40% Clinton +4 New Hampshire OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (659) C: 48% T: 35% Clinton +13 North Carolina OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (1,574) C: 47% T: 44% Clinton +3 Ohio OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 47% T:41% Clinton +6 Pennsylvania OCT. 26-30 Franklin & Marshall College (652) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have been ahead, it was the minority of polls which had Leave ahead which were more accurate given Leave won by 4%
Didn't Leave win more polls than Remain in the weeks before the referendum? That was my recollection, it just wasn't taken seriously.
Remain led in more final polls than Leave did and in the poll average done by the FT
But the final polls were not the only polls. They were wrong, but the polls during postal voting were correct. There was also the twin issues of herding and probable "shy leavers" after the murder of Jo Cox that possibly made the final polls wrong while the earlier polls were correct.
If the same occurs in the USA Hillary has won.
The average polls during the postal voting did not have Leave leading by 4%
The leaders of the leave campaign faced the nation with the solemn indignation of children whose Christmas present arrives in fiddly parts, batteries not included. Years of pester power had delivered a cherished gift to the Tory right, but they wanted someone else to make it work before they could play with it.
In the absence of British leadership, it fell to a Canadian technocrat to calm nerves. Carney told the world the UK economy was “resilient”, but that “a period of uncertainty and instability” could be expected. The Bank of England was making £250bn of funds available to cushion the shock. As the first grownup on the scene, Carney made the Brexiteers look small and weak on their special day. He strode across the fragments of their brittle campaign boasts, and they hate him for it.
Mr. P, the Guardian appears to forget that Cameron and Osborne forbade any of the work to be done preparing for potential departure, and that Cameron resigned, meaning there was a vacuum of power and no semblance of planning for various eventualities.
The fault for treading water in the weeks immediately after the vote lies with one of the chief advocates of Remain.
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to illustrate the importance of using averages rather than selected polls!
National OCT. 20-NOV. 1 RAND (American Life Panel) (2,269) C: 44% T: 35% Clinton +9
Arizona OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (656) C: 38% T: 33% Clinton +5 Colorado OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (637) C: 43% T: 28% Clinton +15 Florida OCT. 25-30 TargetSmart/William & Mary (718) C: 48% T: 40% Clinton +8 Iowa OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (429) C: 38% T: 30% Clinton +8 Maine’s 2nd District OCT. 28-30 Emerson College (375) C: 44% T: 42% Clinton +2 Michigan OCT. 31 Mitchell Research & Communications (737) C: 50% T: 43% Clinton +7 Minnesota OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (773) C: 46% T: 37% Clinton +9 Nevada OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 44% T: 40% Clinton +4 New Hampshire OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (659) C: 48% T: 35% Clinton +13 North Carolina OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (1,574) C: 47% T: 44% Clinton +3 Ohio OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 47% T:41% Clinton +6 Pennsylvania OCT. 26-30 Franklin & Marshall College (652) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have been ahead, it was the minority of polls which had Leave ahead which were more accurate given Leave won by 4%
Of course the average won't be exactly right, and almost certainly there will be a minority of polls that happen to be closer to the right result. But that doesn't help you, unless you have a magic way of picking out the polls that are right!
Unless the polls are all pointing to one winner as they were in 2008 or 1996 you cannot be certain who will win
The leaders of the leave campaign faced the nation with the solemn indignation of children whose Christmas present arrives in fiddly parts, batteries not included. Years of pester power had delivered a cherished gift to the Tory right, but they wanted someone else to make it work before they could play with it.
In the absence of British leadership, it fell to a Canadian technocrat to calm nerves. Carney told the world the UK economy was “resilient”, but that “a period of uncertainty and instability” could be expected. r
I believe there's quite a reasonable value combination bet to be had by backing the number of States won by the Republicans with SkyBet. Currently 358.com has the GOP winning 22 Red States plus 3 "close call" Pink States which are Arizona, Iowa and Ohio. By contrast the Democrats are reckoned to have 3 "close call" light blue states, these being Nevada, North Carolina and Florida. The key to this bet is to assess what would be the GOP's likely BEST and WORST outcomes and to cover the ground between these two positions. I've taken their worst position as being them losing 1 of the 3 pink States and winning none of the 3 light blue States - leaving them with 24 States. Conversely, their best outcome I've taken as them winning all 3 pink States plus 2 of the light blue States, leaving them with 27 States.
I'm then covering this 24 - 27 State range by 2 separate bets with SkyBet, staked as follows:
24 - 25 States at 4.5, staking 60.87% of the total stake 26 - 27 States at 7.0, staking 39.13% of the total stake
Should either element prove successful, this would return winning decimal odds of 2.74 or just short of 7/4 in old money..
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to illustrate the importance of using averages rather than selected polls!
National OCT. 20-NOV. 1 RAND (American Life Panel) (2,269) C: 44% T: 35% Clinton +9
Arizona OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (656) C: 38% T: 33% Clinton +5 Colorado OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (637) C: 43% T: 28% Clinton +15 Florida OCT. 25-30 TargetSmart/William & Mary (718) C: 48% T: 40% Clinton +8 Iowa OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (429) C: 38% T: 30% Clinton +8 Maine’s 2nd District OCT. 28-30 Emerson College (375) C: 44% T: 42% Clinton +2 Michigan OCT. 31 Mitchell Research & Communications (737) C: 50% T: 43% Clinton +7 Minnesota OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (773) C: 46% T: 37% Clinton +9 Nevada OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 44% T: 40% Clinton +4 New Hampshire OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (659) C: 48% T: 35% Clinton +13 North Carolina OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (1,574) C: 47% T: 44% Clinton +3 Ohio OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 47% T:41% Clinton +6 Pennsylvania OCT. 26-30 Franklin & Marshall College (652) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have been ahead, it was the minority of polls which had Leave ahead which were more accurate given Leave won by 4%
Of course the average won't be exactly right, and almost certainly there will be a minority of polls that happen to be closer to the right result. But that doesn't help you, unless you have a magic way of picking out the polls that are right!
Unless the polls are all pointing to one winner as they were in 2008 or 1996 you cannot be certain who will win
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to illustrate the importance of using averages rather than selected polls!
National OCT. 20-NOV. 1 RAND (American Life Panel) (2,269) C: 44% T: 35% Clinton +9
Arizona OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (656) C: 38% T: 33% Clinton +5 Colorado OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (637) C: 43% T: 28% Clinton +15 Florida OCT. 25-30 TargetSmart/William & Mary (718) C: 48% T: 40% Clinton +8 Iowa OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (429) C: 38% T: 30% Clinton +8 Maine’s 2nd District OCT. 28-30 Emerson College (375) C: 44% T: 42% Clinton +2 Michigan OCT. 31 Mitchell Research & Communications (737) C: 50% T: 43% Clinton +7 Minnesota OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (773) C: 46% T: 37% Clinton +9 Nevada OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 44% T: 40% Clinton +4 New Hampshire OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (659) C: 48% T: 35% Clinton +13 North Carolina OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (1,574) C: 47% T: 44% Clinton +3 Ohio OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 47% T:41% Clinton +6 Pennsylvania OCT. 26-30 Franklin & Marshall College (652) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have been ahead, it was the minority of polls which had Leave ahead which were more accurate given Leave won by 4%
Didn't Leave win more polls than Remain in the weeks before the referendum? That was my recollection, it just wasn't taken seriously.
Remain led in more final polls than Leave did and in the poll average done by the FT
But the final polls were not the only polls. They were wrong, but the polls during postal voting were correct. There was also the twin issues of herding and probable "shy leavers" after the murder of Jo Cox that possibly made the final polls wrong while the earlier polls were correct.
If the same occurs in the USA Hillary has won.
The average polls during the postal voting did not have Leave leading by 4%
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when her refers to NPA voters?
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
Mr. P, the Guardian appears to forget that Cameron and Osborne forbade any of the work to be done preparing for potential departure, and that Cameron resigned, meaning there was a vacuum of power and no semblance of planning for various eventualities.
If you read the article, it's about how the Brexiteers are waging war against Osborne, determined to destroy everything he ever touched (including Carney)
If he had presented a plan (beyond the plan he actually did announce and implement) the Brexiteers would now be whining about how misguided and wrong it was, and blaming it for all the ills they spawned.
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
My quick check is Leave +1.something but hat was only a quick check. The key thing though is that it was a leave lead.
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
No Party Affiliation. The key thing being the rise in NPA has been amongst the young and the hispanic.
Blair Miller of the "Denver Channel" reports that, as of last night, Democrats have overturned the traditional GOP advantage in early voting in Colorado as the state has significantly upticked returns. Obama won Colorado in 2012 by 5% :
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to 2) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then ccurate given Leave won by 4%
Didn't Leave win more polls than Remain in the weeks before the referendum? That was my recollection, it just wasn't taken seriously.
Remain led in more final polls than Leave did and in the poll average done by the FT
But the final polls were not the only polls. They were wrong, but the as won.
The average polls during the postal voting did not have Leave leading by 4%
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the : 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have b 4%
Didn't Leave win more polls than Remain in the weeks before the referendum? That was my recollection, it just wasn't taken seriously.
Remain led in more final polls than Leave did and in the poll average done by the FT
But the final polls were not the only polls. They were wrong, but the correct.
If the same occurs in the USA Hillary has won.
The average polls during the postal voting did not have Leave leading by 4%
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
The FT average poll lead did not have Leave ahead by 4% even during the postal voting period
And I'm very glad that JennyFreeman raised the question of polling averages, because I've just prepared a little round-up of selected polls released in the last 24 hours - all concluded at least 2 days after the FBI intervention. The reason I've done this is specifically to illustrate the importance of using averages rather than selected polls!
National OCT. 20-NOV. 1 RAND (American Life Panel) (2,269) C: 44% T: 35% Clinton +9
Arizona OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (656) C: 38% T: 33% Clinton +5 Colorado OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (637) C: 43% T: 28% Clinton +15 Florida OCT. 25-30 TargetSmart/William & Mary (718) C: 48% T: 40% Clinton +8 Iowa OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (429) C: 38% T: 30% Clinton +8 Maine’s 2nd District OCT. 28-30 Emerson College (375) C: 44% T: 42% Clinton +2 Michigan OCT. 31 Mitchell Research & Communications (737) C: 50% T: 43% Clinton +7 Minnesota OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (773) C: 46% T: 37% Clinton +9 Nevada OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 44% T: 40% Clinton +4 New Hampshire OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (659) C: 48% T: 35% Clinton +13 North Carolina OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (1,574) C: 47% T: 44% Clinton +3 Ohio OCT. 27-31 Auto Alliance / ESA / Pulse Opinion Research (525) C: 47% T:41% Clinton +6 Pennsylvania OCT. 26-30 Franklin & Marshall College (652) C: 49% T: 38% Clinton +11 Virginia OCT. 25-31 SurveyMonkey (2,089) C: 48% T: 38% Clinton +10 Wisconsin OCT. 25-31 Google Consumer Surveys (816) C: 41% T: 29% Clinton +12
If you had looked at average polling in the EU referendum then Remain would have been ahead, it was the minority of polls which had Leave ahead which were more accurate given Leave won by 4%
Of course the average won't be exactly right, and almost certainly there will be a minority of polls that happen to be closer to the right result. But that doesn't help you, unless you have a magic way of picking out the polls that are right!
Unless the polls are all pointing to one winner as they were in 2008 or 1996 you cannot be certain who will win
One thing that may be pertinent to bear in mind. Considering changes in 538's estimate of vote share (polls only model) since the peak in Clinton's lead at the time of the third debate:
Clinton -0.9% to 48.8% Trump +2.1% to 44.9% Johnson -1.2% to 4.8%
The average polls during the postal voting did not have Leave leading by 4%
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
The FT average poll lead did not have Leave ahead by 4% even during the postal voting period
Are you remembering to exclude Don't Knows in your figure so that Remain and Leave equal 100% or are you comparing apples with oranges?
Blair Miller of the "Denver Channel" reports that, as of last night, Democrats have overturned the traditional GOP advantage in early voting in Colorado as the state has significantly upticked returns. Obama won Colorado in 2012 by 5% :
I was looking back at the map last night and Clinton will probably win this in the Rocky Mountains. She carries NV and CO IMO (demographics, early voting etc) which leaves only an unlikely Midwest route for Trump.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
No Party Affiliation. The key thing being the rise in NPA has been amongst the young and the hispanic.
My current Strategically Tested Obviously Digitised General Election (US) forecast is:
Clinton 278 Trump 260
This all hangs on several knife edges but I can't see Trump getting any more than 260 unless the polls are severely wrong.
I've put NC and FL in the Trump camp - I think NC has slipped away from Clinton in the past few days but as always the early vote numbers may give her a chance. FL is much harder to read and given it's got 29 EVs on its own, spread players need to be wary of the huge impact this state has on its own.
NV is with Clinton - again, straws in the wind suggest she will win the state though narrowly. I've also given Trump one EV from ME though that could be significant in a close finish.
To show how tricky playing the EV spread is, put FL and NC in the Clinton camp and she wins 322-216 - those 44 EVs could play merry hell with the spread players.
Peter from Putney suggested playing on states won by Trump. I'm at 27 on my original forecast and again FL and NC could take it down to 25.
Mr. P, the Guardian appears to forget that Cameron and Osborne forbade any of the work to be done preparing for potential departure, and that Cameron resigned, meaning there was a vacuum of power and no semblance of planning for various eventualities.
If you read the article, it's about how the Brexiteers are waging war against Osborne, determined to destroy everything he ever touched (including Carney)
If he had presented a plan (beyond the plan he actually did announce and implement) the Brexiteers would now be whining about how misguided and wrong it was, and blaming it for all the ills they spawned.
As an enthusiastic Brexiteer, I say well done to Carney - he was literally the only person in government who had made any serious preparations for a Leave vote. His calm and collected speech as the markets opened on 24th successfully damped what might have become a serious run on the pound. The decision to cut rates in August was wrong though, needs to be undone as imported inflation starts to rise.
Solid construction PMI figures today as well, 52.6 up from 52.3 and ahead of expectations of 52.0 as well. Matches up with what we've been seeing in the real world as well.
When will the Brexiteers actually begin to own their actions? Will the heat death of the Universe happen first?
If you're talking about leading Brexiteers, two of them stood to be leader of the Tory party/PM. Several now occupy leading Cabinet positions.
If you're talking about normal Leave voters, we do own it and are happy to. It just isn't our job to run the country any more than it would have been yours to run it if Remain had won.
Mr. P, the Guardian appears to forget that Cameron and Osborne forbade any of the work to be done preparing for potential departure, and that Cameron resigned, meaning there was a vacuum of power and no semblance of planning for various eventualities.
If you read the article, it's about how the Brexiteers are waging war against Osborne, determined to destroy everything he ever touched (including Carney)
If he had presented a plan (beyond the plan he actually did announce and implement) the Brexiteers would now be whining about how misguided and wrong it was, and blaming it for all the ills they spawned.
As an enthusiastic Brexiteer, I say well done to Carney - he was literally the only person in government who had made any serious preparations for a Leave vote. His calm and collected speech as the markets opened on 24th successfully damped what might have become a serious run on the pound. The decision to cut rates in August was wrong though, needs to be undone as imported inflation starts to rise.
The problem with raising rates is that it will clamp down on consumer spending. While the UK economy needs to become less dependent on consumption, it would be best if that happened slowly rather than as a rapid, panicked, reaction to Brexit.
Yes it did actually, it was very close to that during the postal voting period until the murder of Jo Cox. Especially when you strip out don't knows to make Remain and Leave equal 100%.
My quick check is Leave +1.something but hat was only a quick check. The key thing though is that it was a leave lead.
I make it Leave +3 if you include all polls from start of June to 16 June (murder of Jo Cox). Very close to the real result of Leave +3.78%
Solid construction PMI figures today as well, 52.6 up from 52.3 and ahead of expectations of 52.0 as well. Matches up with what we've been seeing in the real world as well.
Any Remainiac will assure you that a margin like that doesn't really count.
Blair Miller of the "Denver Channel" reports that, as of last night, Democrats have overturned the traditional GOP advantage in early voting in Colorado as the state has significantly upticked returns. Obama won Colorado in 2012 by 5% :
I was looking back at the map last night and Clinton will probably win this in the Rocky Mountains. She carries NV and CO IMO (demographics, early voting etc) which leaves only an unlikely Midwest route for Trump.
Trump is trying to expand the map as Clinton closes his easier routes to 270. Without PA CO or NV he is scrabbling around for a different map. Hence his visits to Michigan and Wisconsin.
"African-Americans are failing to vote at the robust levels they did four years ago in several states that could help decide the presidential election, creating a vexing problem for Hillary Clinton as she clings to a deteriorating lead over Donald J. Trump with Election Day just a week away.
As tens of millions of Americans cast ballots in what will be the largest-ever mobilization of early voters in a presidential election, the numbers have started to point toward a slump that many Democrats feared might materialize without the nation’s first black president on the ticket.
Those early vote Increases in Texas are monstrous. Travis is early voting 181% on 2012, Travis has the heavily, heavily Democratic city of Austin in it.
El Paso is up 260% on 2012, El Paso went Democrat heavier than Austin.
The only bad one for the Democracts is the 170% in Williamson. Voting is also down in Republican Galveston and Denton but I don't know if that's just down to population change.
Given the massive gap to cover it is probably all for nought but that is some amazing differential turnout going on.
Steve Schale, Florida election guru, indicates black vote moving toward 2012 levels and a huge spike in Hispanic voting in the state, include a large number of low propensity voters of that demographic.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
Chris: Yep but that's also based on a polling average which includes polls taken before most of the Trump momentum. I've never found averaging a very reliable method. There's no doubt that Donald Trump is in the ascendancy with the Big Mo.
Nate has Trump now winning Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, where Hillary used to be ahead - but he still loses by 60 electoral college votes.
That can't be right, if Trump wins those three states, the other Romney states, Iowa and Nevada then Hillary only leads 273 to 265. Either Colorado or Pennsylvania would win Trump the Electoral College
The point is that it's a probabilistic model. The "polls plus" model gives Trump a 51% probability of winning Florida, and the same for North Carolina. It doesn't assume he wins both. In fact, the number of those states that he's expected to win in the model is 1.02.
The problem with using probability is that they're not independent events. In a purely independent 50-50 shot you'd expect him to win 1.
However they events aren't independent. He's quite likely to win either 2 or 0 depending upon if the polls shift one way or another, or if there's a mistake in the polling one way or another.
Yes - I shouldn't have said it was exactly 1.02 in the model, because the model does take into account that the outcomes in different states are closely correlated. But the expected number of Trump wins in those states will still be very close to 1, given that both probabilities are 51%. The correlation means that the probability of it being 1 is less than 50% and the probability of it being 0 or 2 is greater than 25%..
Indeed the expected number doesn't vary but if the standard deviation varies then that's the difference between a locked on Clinton victory and a possible Trump victory (and equally possible Clinton landslide).
Yes, I agree. I believe the emphasis on correlation was one reason why Nate Silver's model was showing a larger probability of a Trump win than some others, during the period of Clinton's ascendancy in the polls.
But going back to the original comment I replied to, the key thing for the estimate of electoral college votes is that the model doesn't assume a state is "in the bag" for Trump just because it turns light red.
I rate Nate Silver's model highly but it is an aggregation. It describes the situation, probably accurately, that existed one to two weeks ago. When there's a move just before electron day as there is currently to Trump, his model may not catch up to the actual result.
Mr. P, the Guardian appears to forget that Cameron and Osborne forbade any of the work to be done preparing for potential departure, and that Cameron resigned, meaning there was a vacuum of power and no semblance of planning for various eventualities.
If you read the article, it's about how the Brexiteers are waging war against Osborne, determined to destroy everything he ever touched (including Carney)
If he had presented a plan (beyond the plan he actually did announce and implement) the Brexiteers would now be whining about how misguided and wrong it was, and blaming it for all the ills they spawned.
As an enthusiastic Brexiteer, I say well done to Carney - he was literally the only person in government who had made any serious preparations for a Leave vote. His calm and collected speech as the markets opened on 24th successfully damped what might have become a serious run on the pound. The decision to cut rates in August was wrong though, needs to be undone as imported inflation starts to rise.
The problem with raising rates is that it will clamp down on consumer spending. While the UK economy needs to become less dependent on consumption, it would be best if that happened slowly rather than as a rapid, panicked, reaction to Brexit.
Don't disagree, but the interest rates on the floor aren't helping anyone. A quarter point rise every 2-3 months for the next year isn't going to have too much of an effect, if combined with reducing corporate taxes and increased minimum wages.
Great PMIs today also, the govt should really be aiming to get the construction number up past 60 with planning reforms and surplus land selloffs.
Solid construction PMI figures today as well, 52.6 up from 52.3 and ahead of expectations of 52.0 as well. Matches up with what we've been seeing in the real world as well.
No, that can't be right. The end of the world (well, the country) is supposed to be nigh.
@faisalislam: Government letter to Lords Committee confirms that if UK wants to keep access to Canada deal, & 50+ trade deals, EU 27 will have to agree... pic.twitter.com/rj2YrBIWto
@faisalislam: ... in absence of an agreement with the EU27 about grandfathering the deals with Canada, Korea etc, UK businesses "no longer retain access"
My current Strategically Tested Obviously Digitised General Election (US) forecast is:
Clinton 278 Trump 260
This all hangs on several knife edges but I can't see Trump getting any more than 260 unless the polls are severely wrong.
I've put NC and FL in the Trump camp - I think NC has slipped away from Clinton in the past few days but as always the early vote numbers may give her a chance. FL is much harder to read and given it's got 29 EVs on its own, spread players need to be wary of the huge impact this state has on its own.
NV is with Clinton - again, straws in the wind suggest she will win the state though narrowly. I've also given Trump one EV from ME though that could be significant in a close finish.
To show how tricky playing the EV spread is, put FL and NC in the Clinton camp and she wins 322-216 - those 44 EVs could play merry hell with the spread players.
Peter from Putney suggested playing on states won by Trump. I'm at 27 on my original forecast and again FL and NC could take it down to 25. **
** Both 27 and 25 State wins by Trump are winners in my book!
Hillary's big collapse seems to be with the over $75K voters.
A bit of the change seems to be likelihood to vote with Rs heading upwards.
Florida presumably has its fair share of over $75K voters.
Interesting election - mainly due to the collapse in trust in election polling in the Uk - perhaps US polling has not suffered the same setbacks - or perhaps it was always crap.
The picking of the entrails from the gazed navels may go on for a while.
This is quite possible - we have had two major political events in the UK in the last 18 months where the pollsters got it fundamentally wrong. In the USA, I assume the last major event was the mid-terms, two years ago - when the polls tended to be substantially biased towards the Democrats
Those early vote Increases in Texas are monstrous. Travis is early voting 181% on 2012, Travis has the heavily, heavily Democratic city of Austin in it.
El Paso is up 260% on 2012, El Paso went Democrat heavier than Austin.
The only bad one for the Democracts is the 170% in Williamson. Voting is also down in Republican Galveston and Denton but I don't know if that's just down to population change.
Given the massive gap to cover it is probably all for nought but that is some amazing differential turnout going on.
I think there is a small Shy Clinton factor, especially amount republican voters. EVEN Republicans must not want an objectively repulsive human being like Trump anywhere near power or the Nukes I would have thought.
Despite what the polls say, I still think a 3-4% Clinton win on election night. There GOTV actually exists and Trump has alienated way too many women, college educated whites and Hispanics.
@faisalislam: Government letter to Lords Committee confirms that if UK wants to keep access to Canada deal, & 50+ trade deals, EU 27 will have to agree... pic.twitter.com/rj2YrBIWto
@faisalislam: ... in absence of an agreement with the EU27 about grandfathering the deals with Canada, Korea etc, UK businesses "no longer retain access"
Take Back Control...
The Koreans are being unhelpful, I would agree.
However, I think everyone will want as quiet a life as possible post Brexit, and therefore doubt that many - if any - of the FTAs/preferential trade deals will be rolled back.
@faisalislam: Government letter to Lords Committee confirms that if UK wants to keep access to Canada deal, & 50+ trade deals, EU 27 will have to agree... pic.twitter.com/rj2YrBIWto
@faisalislam: ... in absence of an agreement with the EU27 about grandfathering the deals with Canada, Korea etc, UK businesses "no longer retain access"
Take Back Control...
Long term that is a good thing - we can cleanse these deals of the some of the socialist nonsense the EU probably had to put in to keep the Walloons and their communist ilk happy.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
Early voting figures are up - does this mean Democrats are voting who otherwise wouldn't (I doubt it) or Democrats who'd vote on election day are scared? Why are more people voting early than last time? It doesn't achieve anything different from voting on election day. Is it a bit like putting your ballot into the box with special force, as if to say "Take that" or "I pray this is effective"?
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
I rate Nate Silver's model highly but it is an aggregation. It describes the situation, probably accurately, that existed one to two weeks ago. When there's a move just before electron day as there is currently to Trump, his model may not catch up to the actual result.
I couldn't find a good link explaining all of this but I think his model is a lot more aggressive than that, especially late in the campaign. It weighs new polls more heavily than old polls, and assumes states are correlated so even if there hasn't been any post-something-vague-to-do-with-emails-gate polling in a state it should move to reflect the polls in states where there has been polling.
Early voting figures are up - does this mean Democrats are voting who otherwise wouldn't (I doubt it) or Democrats who'd vote on election day are scared? Why are more people voting early than last time? It doesn't achieve anything different from voting on election day. Is it a bit like putting your ballot into the box with special force, as if to say "Take that"?
Why not? Have you seen Trump's favourability? And the how he talks about women and Hispanics...
@faisalislam: Government letter to Lords Committee confirms that if UK wants to keep access to Canada deal, & 50+ trade deals, EU 27 will have to agree... pic.twitter.com/rj2YrBIWto
@faisalislam: ... in absence of an agreement with the EU27 about grandfathering the deals with Canada, Korea etc, UK businesses "no longer retain access"
Take Back Control...
Long term that is a good thing - we can cleanse these deals of the some of the socialist nonsense the EU probably had to put in to keep the Walloons and their communist ilk happy.
Here are a few of the treaties. You go have a look through and see if you can find me any of those socialist nonsense you've convinced yourself exists.
Early voting figures are up - does this mean Democrats are voting who otherwise wouldn't (I doubt it) or Democrats who'd vote on election day are scared? Why are more people voting early than last time? It doesn't achieve anything different from voting on election day. Is it a bit like putting your ballot into the box with special force, as if to say "Take that"?
Why not? Have you seen Trump's favourability? And the how he talks about women and Hispanics...
Sure, good luck to people who vote early because they think it's especially important to stop Trump, even if they achieve the same as if they vote on the day. But does a rise in early voting by Democrats mean a higher percentage for Clinton when they're counted? I'm not convinced.
The TPP/TTIP is an American plan to replace WTO consensus with US exceptionalism. The Asian and European nations who agree with it are complete fools. Better to force the US into sector by sector NTB elimination via the WTO than to take up US goods standards with the TPP with zero input.
The TPP/TTIP is an American plan to replace WTO consensus with US exceptionalism. The Asian and European nations who agree with it are complete fools. Better to force the US into sector by sector NTB elimination via the WTO than to take up US goods standards with the TPP with zero input.
I tend to agree. I've read large chunks of it, and it's kind of scary how much it cuts (non-US) national governments out.
Of course, the amusing bit is that it is the US that is likely to be the one to row back from TPP...
If as the article state inflation is expected to rise to 4% in the next year, how come I've just been able to tie in a 2 year mortgage rate at 1.5%?
Errr, because the bank is able to hedge its exposure through the swaps market and lock in a guaranteed profit.
So in that case the markets clearly aren't pricing in 4% inflation over the next year. We can safely say it's just another doomer economic opinion, which is the point I was trying to make.
Yes, I agree. I believe the emphasis on correlation was one reason why Nate Silver's model was showing a larger probability of a Trump win than some others, during the period of Clinton's ascendancy in the polls.
But going back to the original comment I replied to, the key thing for the estimate of electoral college votes is that the model doesn't assume a state is "in the bag" for Trump just because it turns light red.
I rate Nate Silver's model highly but it is an aggregation. It describes the situation, probably accurately, that existed one to two weeks ago. When there's a move just before electron day as there is currently to Trump, his model may not catch up to the actual result.
On that basis, we might already have 80% of the effect of the FBI intervention, or we might have 40% of it. The volume of polls seems quite high to me. It will be interesting to see how much movement there is in the model today.
If as the article state inflation is expected to rise to 4% in the next year, how come I've just been able to tie in a 2 year mortgage rate at 1.5%?
Errr, because the bank is able to hedge its exposure through the swaps market and lock in a guaranteed profit.
So in that case the markets clearly aren't pricing in 4% inflation over the next year. We can safely say it's just another doomer economic opinion, which is the point I was trying to make.
Surely this is a big misjudgement by Suzanne Evans; an appalling reason for anyone to go into teaching?:
"Ukip activists should sign up to train as teachers so that they can influence what children are taught from an early age, one of the frontrunners for the party’s leadership has said."
Jeezo, and she's supposed to be the credible one.
Oh do bugger off. Do you expect us to believe for one second that you wouldn't support Scot nats doing exactly the same to foster a brave new generation of indy-supporting boys and girls?
Early voting figures are up - does this mean Democrats are voting who otherwise wouldn't (I doubt it) or Democrats who'd vote on election day are scared? Why are more people voting early than last time? It doesn't achieve anything different from voting on election day. Is it a bit like putting your ballot into the box with special force, as if to say "Take that"?
Why not? Have you seen Trump's favourability? And the how he talks about women and Hispanics...
Sure, good luck to people who vote early because they think it's especially important to stop Trump, even if they achieve the same as if they vote on the day. But does a rise in early voting by Democrats mean a higher percentage for Clinton when they're counted? I'm not convinced.
You do know getting low propensity voters means that they rarely vote, so for them to vote early is very good for the Clinton campaign if they are Democrats/Hispanics? Its a big gain.
I have yet to see any adverts from Trump of democrats jumping ship. Why is that?
If as the article state inflation is expected to rise to 4% in the next year, how come I've just been able to tie in a 2 year mortgage rate at 1.5%?
Errr, because the bank is able to hedge its exposure through the swaps market and lock in a guaranteed profit.
So in that case the markets clearly aren't pricing in 4% inflation over the next year. We can safely say it's just another doomer economic opinion, which is the point I was trying to make.
UK index linked gilts offer you negative 2.0% yields for 10 years.
You are guaranteed to lose 20% of your money in real terms over the next 10 years.
The prices of these assets are set by a number of factors, not just market expectations. Capital requirements for banks force them to buy assets and lock in losses while quantitive easing has a similar distorting effect, whether it's done by the ECB, the BoJ, the Fed or the BoE.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
Those early vote Increases in Texas are monstrous. Travis is early voting 181% on 2012, Travis has the heavily, heavily Democratic city of Austin in it.
El Paso is up 260% on 2012, El Paso went Democrat heavier than Austin.
The only bad one for the Democracts is the 170% in Williamson. Voting is also down in Republican Galveston and Denton but I don't know if that's just down to population change.
Given the massive gap to cover it is probably all for nought but that is some amazing differential turnout going on.
I think there is a small Shy Clinton factor, especially amount republican voters. EVEN Republicans must not want an objectively repulsive human being like Trump anywhere near power or the Nukes I would have thought.
Despite what the polls say, I still think a 3-4% Clinton win on election night. There GOTV actually exists and Trump has alienated way too many women, college educated whites and Hispanics.
My view/prediction is that Trump's vote is going to be very efficient and that he is going to take states from Clinton compared to 2012 but not enough to win.
However, due to his vote efficiency the margins that he will win states by will move a whole pile of "safe Red" states into swing state status leaving the Republicans with a problem for 2020.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model.
There was a bit of discussion of his trend adjustment yesterday. My impression is that he is not projecting any future changes on the basis of the existing trend, but is trying to correct older polls on the basis of subsequent movements. But while the principle seems clear enough applied to the state-by-state projections, I'm not clear how it works for the national polls.
I don't know if this has already been noted, but there's a new, open-source statistical model of the US election available, based on polls only. It looks really rather good, and you can play with the model if you are so inclined and suitably skilled. The model seems to be giving similar results to NYT and HuffPost, with less of a long tail to the distribution than 538.
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV - NC 71% Clinton - FL 64% Clinton - NV 61% Clinton - OH 32% Clinton - IA 23% Clinton - AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
Always important to keep a cool head whilst punting on this. Although the media cycle appears to be with Trump, Clinton is still ahead - in addition Nate is factoring in further movement to Trump in his polls only model. I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
The TPP/TTIP is an American plan to replace WTO consensus with US exceptionalism. The Asian and European nations who agree with it are complete fools. Better to force the US into sector by sector NTB elimination via the WTO than to take up US goods standards with the TPP with zero input.
I tend to agree. I've read large chunks of it, and it's kind of scary how much it cuts (non-US) national governments out.
Of course, the amusing bit is that it is the US that is likely to be the one to row back from TPP...
Lol, you were the one who implied it then I read them and came to the same conclusion. The TPP basically stamps US goods standards across the whole of Asia completely bypassing any national governments and since the free trade aspect covers almost all goods categories basically everything manufactured in Asia outside of China would have to be built to standards set in Congress with no input from foreign governments or companies. Crazy.
I think President Clinton will push ahead with it, regardless of her grandstanding in the primaries. The EU will pull out of TTIP though, it is extremely unfavourable to the EU.
In the end I think the best deal with the US will be bilateral tariff elimination. Anything that goes further will hand too much power to politicians over whom we have no influence. Tbh, I don't think we need to go any further than that, our trade with the US is quite favourable already and removal of goods tariffs will help both nations.
If as the article state inflation is expected to rise to 4% in the next year, how come I've just been able to tie in a 2 year mortgage rate at 1.5%?
Errr, because the bank is able to hedge its exposure through the swaps market and lock in a guaranteed profit.
So in that case the markets clearly aren't pricing in 4% inflation over the next year. We can safely say it's just another doomer economic opinion, which is the point I was trying to make.
We have had at least 4% annual inflation in house prices since 2009.
Why does no one care about the inflation rate in our biggest spend?
What isn't being talked about is that the EU trade deals may be materially changed for the EU once we Leave.
If the UK is a big importer via an EU trade deal currently, then (when we go) the deal will have substantially changed. The other side may no longer find the EU deal as attractive if we are no longer in it.
The UK may have to re-do trade deals post-Brexit, but so may the EU.
Comments
Not sure, haven't looked at those numbers yet to indicate why.
Interesting election - mainly due to the collapse in trust in election polling in the Uk - perhaps US polling has not suffered the same setbacks - or perhaps it was always crap.
The picking of the entrails from the gazed navels may go on for a while.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
For some reason Texas early voting stats aren't on that tweet
Texas have stats up to the 31st of October. Comparing like for like with 2012
2012 - 2,161,513
2016 - 2,982,616
In the absence of British leadership, it fell to a Canadian technocrat to calm nerves. Carney told the world the UK economy was “resilient”, but that “a period of uncertainty and instability” could be expected. The Bank of England was making £250bn of funds available to cushion the shock. As the first grownup on the scene, Carney made the Brexiteers look small and weak on their special day. He strode across the fragments of their brittle campaign boasts, and they hate him for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/02/mark-carney-brexit-bolsheviks-new-target-chancellor
https://youtu.be/37bE_2kwfh8
The fault for treading water in the weeks immediately after the vote lies with one of the chief advocates of Remain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3889994/Influence-peddling-acting-Putin-s-ally-hiding-classified-secrets-sexting-FIVE-separate-FBI-cases-probing-virtually-one-Clinton-s-inner-circle-families.html
Some EU officials reportedly fear May is pursuing a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy before Brexit negotiations.'
http://tinyurl.com/zd8m9lw
I'm sure Tessy and Vik will find they have lots in common.
***** BETTING POST *****
I believe there's quite a reasonable value combination bet to be had by backing the number of States won by the Republicans with SkyBet.
Currently 358.com has the GOP winning 22 Red States plus 3 "close call" Pink States which are Arizona, Iowa and Ohio.
By contrast the Democrats are reckoned to have 3 "close call" light blue states, these being Nevada, North Carolina and Florida.
The key to this bet is to assess what would be the GOP's likely BEST and WORST outcomes and to cover the ground between these two positions.
I've taken their worst position as being them losing 1 of the 3 pink States and winning none of the 3 light blue States - leaving them with 24 States.
Conversely, their best outcome I've taken as them winning all 3 pink States plus 2 of the light blue States, leaving them with 27 States.
I'm then covering this 24 - 27 State range by 2 separate bets with SkyBet, staked as follows:
24 - 25 States at 4.5, staking 60.87% of the total stake
26 - 27 States at 7.0, staking 39.13% of the total stake
Should either element prove successful, this would return winning decimal odds of 2.74 or just short of 7/4 in old money..
Do your own research.
What does Schale mean on his site when he refers to NPA voters?
If he had presented a plan (beyond the plan he actually did announce and implement) the Brexiteers would now be whining about how misguided and wrong it was, and blaming it for all the ills they spawned.
When will the Brexiteers actually begin to own their actions? Will the heat death of the Universe happen first?
@tnewtondunn: More Brexit pressure on PM: Moody’s say they will downgrade UK's credit rating if EU deal fails to keep core access to Single Market.
This is great news, right?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/colorado-early-voting-numbers-top-1-million-one-third-of-registered-voters-have-cast-ballot
Clinton -0.9% to 48.8%
Trump +2.1% to 44.9%
Johnson -1.2% to 4.8%
Clinton lead -3% to 3.9%
The model is (temporarily) here:
http://www.slate.com/features/pkremp_forecast/report.html
Currently showing:
- 91% probability of a Clinton win overall in the ECV
- NC 71% Clinton
- FL 64% Clinton
- NV 61% Clinton
- OH 32% Clinton
- IA 23% Clinton
- AZ 18% Clinton
Note also the confidence limits on the Clinton national lead - well within the 0-5% band.
A background article here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/11/the_polls_of_the_future_will_be_reproducible_and_open_source.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
The Brexiteers sextuple whammy.
Greater unemployment
Rising prices
More borrowing
Reduced investment
Weakened currency
Poorer credit
UK Construction PMIs, where I am generally worried, improved from 52.3 to 52.6.
Eurozone Manufacturing PMI reached 53.5, a three year high.
My current Strategically Tested Obviously Digitised General Election (US) forecast is:
Clinton 278 Trump 260
This all hangs on several knife edges but I can't see Trump getting any more than 260 unless the polls are severely wrong.
I've put NC and FL in the Trump camp - I think NC has slipped away from Clinton in the past few days but as always the early vote numbers may give her a chance. FL is much harder to read and given it's got 29 EVs on its own, spread players need to be wary of the huge impact this state has on its own.
NV is with Clinton - again, straws in the wind suggest she will win the state though narrowly. I've also given Trump one EV from ME though that could be significant in a close finish.
To show how tricky playing the EV spread is, put FL and NC in the Clinton camp and she wins 322-216 - those 44 EVs could play merry hell with the spread players.
Peter from Putney suggested playing on states won by Trump. I'm at 27 on my original forecast and again FL and NC could take it down to 25.
If you're talking about normal Leave voters, we do own it and are happy to. It just isn't our job to run the country any more than it would have been yours to run it if Remain had won.
Inflation is half of what it is supposed to be
And so on ... do you expect to be taken seriously when you write this?
"African-Americans are failing to vote at the robust levels they did four years ago in several states that could help decide the presidential election, creating a vexing problem for Hillary Clinton as she clings to a deteriorating lead over Donald J. Trump with Election Day just a week away.
As tens of millions of Americans cast ballots in what will be the largest-ever mobilization of early voters in a presidential election, the numbers have started to point toward a slump that many Democrats feared might materialize without the nation’s first black president on the ticket.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/black-turnout-falls-in-early-voting-boding-ill-for-hillary-clinton.html?referer=
El Paso is up 260% on 2012, El Paso went Democrat heavier than Austin.
The only bad one for the Democracts is the 170% in Williamson. Voting is also down in Republican Galveston and Denton but I don't know if that's just down to population change.
Given the massive gap to cover it is probably all for nought but that is some amazing differential turnout going on.
I've balanced up a bit further by laying Trump at 3.7
The one thing that makes me a bit nervous is going against Rod Crosby' prediction - but on the flip side his model is still showing a Clinton victory.
I'm as follows (Clinton ECVs)
0 - 250 ECVs : 15x - 2871
250 - 270 ECVs: 880
271+ ECVs : 600
Great PMIs today also, the govt should really be aiming to get the construction number up past 60 with planning reforms and surplus land selloffs.
@faisalislam: ... in absence of an agreement with the EU27 about grandfathering the deals with Canada, Korea etc, UK businesses "no longer retain access"
Take Back Control...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/
Despite what the polls say, I still think a 3-4% Clinton win on election night. There GOTV actually exists and Trump has alienated way too many women, college educated whites and Hispanics.
However, I think everyone will want as quiet a life as possible post Brexit, and therefore doubt that many - if any - of the FTAs/preferential trade deals will be rolled back.
In the US case HRC would be doing a great service to the 2nd female POTUS by setting the bar limbo-dancingly low, stupid and corrupt.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/february/tradoc_154329.pdf
By way of comparison, here are the TPP texts:
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text
I think you'll find that the EU trade agreements are (a) shorter and (b) much less denuding of sovereignty.
(a) the amount of competition in that market
and
(b) the price at which exposure can be hedged
It has nothing to do with the bank's view on the likely evolution of inflation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oogFbM8avLg
VT KY CT DL DC IL MD MA ME RI OK KS NB ND TX MI NY NJ PA NH CA HI WA WI NC Obama projected to re-election.
As for the PMIs, I wonder how the markets and the economy will react IF the Donald prevails next week.
Of course, the amusing bit is that it is the US that is likely to be the one to row back from TPP...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-four-ways-forward-for-clinton-after-the-fbi-news/
On that basis, we might already have 80% of the effect of the FBI intervention, or we might have 40% of it. The volume of polls seems quite high to me. It will be interesting to see how much movement there is in the model today.
Also what happens after 2 years.
I have yet to see any adverts from Trump of democrats jumping ship. Why is that?
You are guaranteed to lose 20% of your money in real terms over the next 10 years.
The prices of these assets are set by a number of factors, not just market expectations. Capital requirements for banks force them to buy assets and lock in losses while quantitive easing has a similar distorting effect, whether it's done by the ECB, the BoJ, the Fed or the BoE.
Funny old world.
However, due to his vote efficiency the margins that he will win states by will move a whole pile of "safe Red" states into swing state status leaving the Republicans with a problem for 2020.
I think President Clinton will push ahead with it, regardless of her grandstanding in the primaries. The EU will pull out of TTIP though, it is extremely unfavourable to the EU.
In the end I think the best deal with the US will be bilateral tariff elimination. Anything that goes further will hand too much power to politicians over whom we have no influence. Tbh, I don't think we need to go any further than that, our trade with the US is quite favourable already and removal of goods tariffs will help both nations.
We have had at least 4% annual inflation in house prices since 2009.
Why does no one care about the inflation rate in our biggest spend?
What isn't being talked about is that the EU trade deals may be materially changed for the EU once we Leave.
If the UK is a big importer via an EU trade deal currently, then (when we go) the deal will have substantially changed. The other side may no longer find the EU deal as attractive if we are no longer in it.
The UK may have to re-do trade deals post-Brexit, but so may the EU.