What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
The decision is very Kafkaesque.
Having skimmed it I tend to agree with those who are criticising the position of the Government lawyers. They seem to have adopted an absolutist position; that the government can do what it likes regardless of the impact on domestic law. That cannot be right; the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to override primary legislation. But there were much more straightforward arguments about the application of Article 50. the ECA will remain a part of our law (including its provisions re the supremacy of EU law) until Parliament decides otherwise.
The absurd position adopted by the government lawyers seems to have given the claimants an advantage that they should not have had and perhaps given the Court little option. Any appeal will have to be far more subtle. Maybe as subtle as a brick.
If anyone's interested, I've just posted my initial thoughts on the Brexit judgement on my blog... www.lifestuff.xyz
Cheers, interesting!
Are you working on the Comments issue on your blog? The Facebook thing is a significant limitation for you in my opinion if you want to build up a community.
What has changed your view? (If indeed it has changed!)
Trump simply isn't ahead in enough polls, and he is behind in the wrong polls.
Mind you I could be wrong. If I am, piling on Trump on election night when he is clearly winning will be easier than Hillary who will quickly collapse into 1.01.
Hence balancing up (If anything tilting toward Hillary bearing in mind Trump tail risk) now.
No chance she holds OH IMO, unless Trump closes extremely badly!
Well quite. I think gaining Arizona is more realistic.
But this is the "max" map I'm looking at here.
It looks like strategically the Democrats have chosen to focus on NC and Florida than Ohio. Ohio doesnt stack up for the Democrats..... ehnically, college educated and younger voters. Strikes me as a pretty grim place.....WWC and farmers..... and ageing......a combination of Hartlepool, Lincolnshire and Blackpool without the sea.....
BTW.... my anti religious rant last night....I have spent the most wonderful afternoon in Florence. Clocked up twenty thousand steps. I think I might try and convert to Catholicism.....OK the belief in God may be a sticking point, but not insurmountable
Another way to read that chart is that 36% of people polled couldn't make up their minds whether Mrs May is any better than Mr Corbyn would be.
Or, that there are a lot of Labour supporters who can’t bring themselves to vote against Jeremy and would rather abstain. – I’m sure there are other interpretations…
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
You would have to be a total bloody idiot to think that, it's not as though the question was even remotely ambiguous. People understood what they were voting for.
They understood that they were voting to leave, but some also thought they were voting for £350m/week to go to the NHS. Some were voting for a soft Brexit, for EEA or EFTA etc. Some thought that Cameron would stay as PM, some thought the pound wouldn't plummet. So each individual may have understood what they were voting for, trouble is there were many different interpretations.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
The decision is very Kafkaesque.
Having skimmed it I tend to agree with those who are criticising the position of the Government lawyers. They seem to have adopted an absolutist position; that the government can do what it likes regardless of the impact on domestic law. That cannot be right; the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to override primary legislation. But there were much more straightforward arguments about the application of Article 50. the ECA will remain a part of our law (including its provisions re the supremacy of EU law) until Parliament decides otherwise.
The absurd position adopted by the government lawyers seems to have given the claimants an advantage that they should not have had and perhaps given the Court little option. Any appeal will have to be far more subtle. Maybe as subtle as a brick.
Thanks for that. The ruling does make more sense now.
On the sauce for the gander principle, I guess Mikey must think that the same applies to the 59 Scottish constituencies.
Hmmmm Tory remainers can vote on their conscience knowing that they are safe.... the opposition is led by a clown. Labour remainers can vote on their conscience knowing they are led by a clown and Turkeys waiting for Xmas anyhow...better to go out with a loud gobble before festivities begin
Thinking back to when the Scots voted for independence, there was at least a manifesto of what Independence met, that could be argued over and attacked / defended.
With hindsight, Cameron should have insisted on the same - appoint the official Leave group much earlier, give them cash and civil service access to create the Leave white paper, and have the referendum on that basis.
Would have meant that: -all the inconsistencies about what Leave actually means would have been thrashed out ahead of the vote. -the Leave side would have been owning a manifesto not making stuff up to put on a bus -both sides would have asked people to vote for something, rather than one for and one against. -there would be much more clarity about what Leave meant and how it would be implemented. -far less whinging about the result from the losers (maybe!)
I wonder if Cameron would still be in number 10 if he'd followed that route, instead of going for his re-negotiation?
On the sauce for the gander principle, I guess Mikey must think that the same applies to the 59 Scottish constituencies.
649* out of 650 MPs at the last election were elected to represent parties whose official position was to remain in the EU. You can spin stats like these any way you want.
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
You would have to be a total bloody idiot to think that, it's not as though the question was even remotely ambiguous. People understood what they were voting for.
They understood that they were voting to leave, but some also thought they were voting for £350m/week to go to the NHS. Some were voting for a soft Brexit, for EEA or EFTA etc. Some thought that Cameron would stay as PM, some thought the pound wouldn't plummet. So each individual may have understood what they were voting for, trouble is there were many different interpretations.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Apparently 32% of Remain voters aren't just in denial they are quite stupid.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
The decision is very Kafkaesque.
Having skimmed it I tend to agree with those who are criticising the position of the Government lawyers. They seem to have adopted an absolutist position; that the government can do what it likes regardless of the impact on domestic law. That cannot be right; the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to override primary legislation. But there were much more straightforward arguments about the application of Article 50. the ECA will remain a part of our law (including its provisions re the supremacy of EU law) until Parliament decides otherwise.
The absurd position adopted by the government lawyers seems to have given the claimants an advantage that they should not have had and perhaps given the Court little option. Any appeal will have to be far more subtle. Maybe as subtle as a brick.
My previous impression was that the Government lawyers' position was that the Government has no choice but to use the Royal Prerogative. That the Government has no discretion to put the act in front of Parliament, even if it wishes to do so. I suspect the political imperative was to remove any doubt or wiggle room and this political imperative trumped legal arguments.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
In 2014, for all but two times the question was asked, the DK sum on a similar question ranged between 36 and 44. It narrowed markedly in the run-up to the election. To 27.
I'm still not sure why a place like this doesn't show such data as part of a time series but mine is not to wonder why.
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Around 85% assured of becoming the next POTUS imho.
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
You would have to be a total bloody idiot to think that, it's not as though the question was even remotely ambiguous. People understood what they were voting for.
No, you just need to move in a circle of friends with similar views - just as we saw with SindyRef there was genuine consternation among some when the vote didn't go their way - when all their friends voted for it!
Thinking back to when the Scots voted for independence, there was at least a manifesto of what Independence met, that could be argued over and attacked / defended.
With hindsight, Cameron should have insisted on the same - appoint the official Leave group much earlier, give them cash and civil service access to create the Leave white paper, and have the referendum on that basis.
Would have meant that: -all the inconsistencies about what Leave actually means would have been thrashed out ahead of the vote. -the Leave side would have been owning a manifesto not making stuff up to put on a bus -both sides would have asked people to vote for something, rather than one for and one against. -there would be much more clarity about what Leave meant and how it would be implemented. -far less whinging about the result from the losers (maybe!)
I wonder if Cameron would still be in number 10 if he'd followed that route, instead of going for his re-negotiation?
Yes, the trouble with referenda in general and that one in particular is that people know what one side (the status quo) means. The other side is open to all, even contradictory, interpretations and also to a bash the Government or elites/experts.
Thinking back to when the Scots voted for independence, there was at least a manifesto of what Independence met, that could be argued over and attacked / defended.
With hindsight, Cameron should have insisted on the same - appoint the official Leave group much earlier, give them cash and civil service access to create the Leave white paper, and have the referendum on that basis.
Would have meant that: -all the inconsistencies about what Leave actually means would have been thrashed out ahead of the vote. -the Leave side would have been owning a manifesto not making stuff up to put on a bus -both sides would have asked people to vote for something, rather than one for and one against. -there would be much more clarity about what Leave meant and how it would be implemented. -far less whinging about the result from the losers (maybe!)
I wonder if Cameron would still be in number 10 if he'd followed that route, instead of going for his re-negotiation?
I have been thinking that too. What it keeps coming back to is they never expected Leave to win. Which is why we are in this mess.
Make no mistake though, senior Corbynistas confirm he is acting as an aide in all but name. He believes Labour can do in Britain what Syriza did in Greece,
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Virtually certain to be the next POTUS imho.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
Duh
Was it? My focus was on escape.
I voted to tunnel out of the prison camp, not which bar I was going to buy my first beer in afterwards.
Make no mistake though, senior Corbynistas confirm he is acting as an aide in all but name. He believes Labour can do in Britain what Syriza did in Greece,
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Around 85% assured of becoming the next POTUS imho.
Yes but there is a big potential range. On Monday I had Clinton winning 278-260. The three "toss ups" for me now are NC, AZ and FL. I've put them all in the Trump camp but if HRC wins all three she's home by 333-205 so the range is 55 which in a market with just 538 EVs is over 10%.
I wouldn't play that market with that big a range - I do think Clinton will edge NC but FL and AZ - I don't know.
In 2014, for all but two times the question was asked, the DK sum on a similar question ranged between 36 and 44. It narrowed markedly in the run-up to the election. To 27.
I'm still not sure why a place like this doesn't show such data as part of a time series but mine is not to wonder why.
Useful for reminding us how often Cameron beat May's 47 score.....like........never.....he did get to 41....once, but of course he was facing a much stronger Ed.....on 17.....
Make no mistake though, senior Corbynistas confirm he is acting as an aide in all but name. He believes Labour can do in Britain what Syriza did in Greece,
Now new research from YouGov finds that the highest number of Remain voters are still stuck at the first stage: denial. Nearly a third (32%) of Remain voters say that they don’t believe people in the UK really wanted to leave the EU.
You would have to be a total bloody idiot to think that, it's not as though the question was even remotely ambiguous. People understood what they were voting for.
They understood that they were voting to leave, but some also thought they were voting for £350m/week to go to the NHS. Some were voting for a soft Brexit, for EEA or EFTA etc. Some thought that Cameron would stay as PM, some thought the pound wouldn't plummet. So each individual may have understood what they were voting for, trouble is there were many different interpretations.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Apparently 32% of Remain voters aren't just in denial they are quite stupid.
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Charlie Spierling [Wave Hands] -> Clinton debate prep documents included jokes; visual instructions https://t.co/ttcepIktWV
Is that a big deal? That's why one does prep - to become aware of gaps in the presentation and take steps to fill them.
It's what leads to things like 'Please clap'.
Nothing wrong with that either if audience participation is part of the show, as long as viewers/listeners don't get the impression it's a genuine appreciation of what's being applauded.
If it's an attempt to persuade viewers/listeners that policies being suggested by Trump/Clinton/May/Corbyn are being warmly applauded spontaneously by an audience of uncommitted voters, then it might be considered manipulative, I suppose.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
Duh
FFS it's not complicated, the hypothetical destinations are many, but they all involve leaving the EU. That was literally the question and the choice you had to make. Nobody on the Leave side was saying a vote to Leave was really a vote to Remain, and the Remain side were warning that Leave was Leave and all sorts of dreadful consequences would occur.
This goes far beyond butt hurt, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that people voted for X thinking they would actually get Y, or vice versa.
Make no mistake though, senior Corbynistas confirm he is acting as an aide in all but name. He believes Labour can do in Britain what Syriza did in Greece,
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Virtually certain to be the next POTUS imho.
North Carolina going red, Florida Blue.
Could be the basis of a bet that...
A Trump win would be as monumental as Brexit Referendum mis-calculation. Here's hoping for 2 in a row.
Charlie Spierling [Wave Hands] -> Clinton debate prep documents included jokes; visual instructions https://t.co/ttcepIktWV
Is that a big deal? That's why one does prep - to become aware of gaps in the presentation and take steps to fill them.
It's what leads to things like 'Please clap'.
Nothing wrong with that either if audience participation is part of the show, as long as viewers/listeners don't get the impression it's a genuine appreciation of what's being applauded.
3) We're likely to get a vote on staying in the customs unions and the single market.
But that makes zero sense, because parliament can't decide whether we are offered either of those, or on what terms. It can perhaps express a view that they are or are not desirable, but this is a negotiation with 27 other countries, the Commission and the EU parliament. You can't negotiate by parliamentary debate.
Which is why this decision is ridiculous. Of course Parliament has to vote on the repeal of the ECA. It needs to vote on the great reform bill we were promised. But it cannot usefully vote on the terms of the deal until the government has made it and to do that they need to serve notice under Article 50.
The decision is very Kafkaesque.
Having skimmed it I tend to agree with those who are criticising the position of the Government lawyers. They seem to have adopted an absolutist position; that the government can do what it likes regardless of the impact on domestic law. That cannot be right; the Royal Prerogative cannot be used to override primary legislation. But there were much more straightforward arguments about the application of Article 50. the ECA will remain a part of our law (including its provisions re the supremacy of EU law) until Parliament decides otherwise.
The absurd position adopted by the government lawyers seems to have given the claimants an advantage that they should not have had and perhaps given the Court little option. Any appeal will have to be far more subtle. Maybe as subtle as a brick.
Any suggestions for us non-lawyers as to what this subtle brick might be like?
In 2014, for all but two times the question was asked, the DK sum on a similar question ranged between 36 and 44. It narrowed markedly in the run-up to the election. To 27.
I'm still not sure why a place like this doesn't show such data as part of a time series but mine is not to wonder why.
Useful for reminding us how often Cameron beat May's 47 score.....like........never.....he did get to 41....once, but of course he was facing a much stronger Ed.....on 17.....
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Virtually certain to be the next POTUS imho.
North Carolina going red, Florida Blue.
Could be the basis of a bet that...
Funnily enough, what I think is happening is that Republicans are voting Republican on party lines. Any Trump deficiencies are overlooked, but equally he doesn't have much personal support.
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Around 85% assured of becoming the next POTUS imho.
Are there any shy Americans? If so, Trump will win. I've never met a shy one, mind...in hundreds of visits.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
Duh
Was it? My focus was on escape.
I voted to tunnel out of the prison camp, not which bar I was going to buy my first beer in afterwards.
A slight movement on the spreads this p.m. The good news is that Sporting have seen sense (or perhaps they've seen clients voting with their feet as i suggested yesterday). Either way, they've reduced their spread margin on their ECV market from a ridiculous 15 points to a much fairer 10 points. Greedy Spreadex on the other hand have actually increased their margin from 12 points to 15!
As regards the spreads themselves, Sporting go:
Clinton ....... 292 - 302 Trump ........ 234 - 244
Spreadex go:
Clinton ....... 285 - 300 Trump ........ 237 - 252
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Now Brexit is cancelled, we are so much better off.
Carney and the services PMI did a lot of the heavy lifting as well. I think the interest rate decision and minutes signalling a possible rise is the largest factor.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
Duh
Was it? My focus was on escape.
I voted to tunnel out of the prison camp, not which bar I was going to buy my first beer in afterwards.
If anyone's interested, I've just posted my initial thoughts on the Brexit judgement on my blog... www.lifestuff.xyz
Cheers, interesting!
Are you working on the Comments issue on your blog? The Facebook thing is a significant limitation for you in my opinion if you want to build up a community.
Yes, I'm trying to find a way around it... any suggestions?
Listen, May and your whips: either you've got the support of the Commons and Lords for invoking Article 50 or you haven't. Introduce a bill. Quit the lawyering.
I wonder if Cameron would still be in number 10 if he'd followed that route, instead of going for his re-negotiation?
An interesting idea. I think you might be right (except it would have been 'as well as going for his renegotiation', which did achieve some essential aims if we were going to Remain).
Yes, but which Leave? And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
Well at least you are acknowledging that it was a Leave, so you are better than 32% of Remainers who think black is white, up is down, left is right, on is off etc.
Of course it was Leave, anybody's guess how many wanted Hard Brexit (10%?), EEA/EFTA (30%?), £350m to NHS (7%?), bash the Government (5%?). At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.
It doesn't matter what they thought the destination was, the question was remain in or leave the EU, and you had to tick a box saying leave. How anyone can interpret that as anything other than a vote to leave is beyond me.
Because the vote was based on their understanding of the destination.
Duh
Was it? My focus was on escape.
I voted to tunnel out of the prison camp, not which bar I was going to buy my first beer in afterwards.
Mine was in The Maltsters in Cheshunt.
Mine the Wheelwrights in Goffs Oak.... and bar billiards too.
I think it's just about possible that Trump loses some or all of AZ, CO, NV, FL and carries WI.
Demographics.
There's a lot of contradictory data out there. It can't all be accurate. Either Trump's national share is strengthening and he will knock off a swathe of swing states, or it isn't and he won't.
Or, there isn't universal swing in operation.
It is hard to judge all of the information, but I'm now as follows:
Clinton
319+ EVs +613 270-318 +697 250-269 +760 0-250 760 less £15 per ECV below 249.
That leaves me in profit for anything over 200 ECVs for Clinton, which requires Trump to win Virginia.
That's a great looking book, I wish it were mine! AAMOI, how do you expect the POTUS election to finish?
Clinton 213 - 323 ECVs upper, lower range.
Trump faces significant difficulties getting over 266, if he does however then he could easily push Hillary down to 217 (Since I expect Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania all to be reasonably correlated)
Thanks for your reply, sorry for the delay in getting back - I'm amazed by your massive 110 range in Hillary's ECVs. I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Virtually certain to be the next POTUS imho.
North Carolina going red, Florida Blue.
Could be the basis of a bet that...
A Trump win would be as monumental as Brexit Referendum mis-calculation. Here's hoping for 2 in a row.
Comments
First Back Hillary to win the popular vote (ask for 1.4, wait to get matched)
Then Back Trump to win the election (at 3.4)
The default outcome is a sub-1% loss, but Nate Silver gives you a 12% chance of collecting on both, and only a 0.4% chance of losing both.
Tories + UKIP = 52% same as Brexit Leave vote
The absurd position adopted by the government lawyers seems to have given the claimants an advantage that they should not have had and perhaps given the Court little option. Any appeal will have to be far more subtle. Maybe as subtle as a brick.
Are you working on the Comments issue on your blog?
The Facebook thing is a significant limitation for you in my opinion if you want to build up a community.
BTW.... my anti religious rant last night....I have spent the most wonderful afternoon in Florence. Clocked up twenty thousand steps. I think I might try and convert to Catholicism.....OK the belief in God may be a sticking point, but not insurmountable
So each individual may have understood what they were voting for, trouble is there were many different interpretations.
Thanks for that. The ruling does make more sense now.
Hmmmm Tory remainers can vote on their conscience knowing that they are safe.... the opposition is led by a clown. Labour remainers can vote on their conscience knowing they are led by a clown and Turkeys waiting for Xmas anyhow...better to go out with a loud gobble before festivities begin
Thinking back to when the Scots voted for independence, there was at least a manifesto of what Independence met, that could be argued over and attacked / defended.
With hindsight, Cameron should have insisted on the same - appoint the official Leave group much earlier, give them cash and civil service access to create the Leave white paper, and have the referendum on that basis.
Would have meant that:
-all the inconsistencies about what Leave actually means would have been thrashed out ahead of the vote.
-the Leave side would have been owning a manifesto not making stuff up to put on a bus
-both sides would have asked people to vote for something, rather than one for and one against.
-there would be much more clarity about what Leave meant and how it would be implemented.
-far less whinging about the result from the losers (maybe!)
I wonder if Cameron would still be in number 10 if he'd followed that route, instead of going for his re-negotiation?
* The 1 being Carswell, obviously
Apparently 32% of Remain voters aren't just in denial they are quite stupid.
The final result depends on what other countries want to do
Cameron 37%
Miliband 20%
Clegg 5%
DK 38%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7rj2tjjm1c/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-050515.pdf
Duh
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/7rj2tjjm1c/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-050515.pdf
In 2014, for all but two times the question was asked, the DK sum on a similar question ranged between 36 and 44. It narrowed markedly in the run-up to the election. To 27.
I'm still not sure why a place like this doesn't show such data as part of a time series but mine is not to wonder why.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/trump-tower-goes-bust-canada-214412
I'd narrow things down a bit and say 308 if she wins Florida and 279 if she doesn't. Around 85% assured of becoming the next POTUS imho.
Make no mistake though, senior Corbynistas confirm he is acting as an aide in all but name. He believes Labour can do in Britain what Syriza did in Greece,
https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/greece-word-paul-mason-labour/
Could be the basis of a bet that...
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/794137317023813632
I voted to tunnel out of the prison camp, not which bar I was going to buy my first beer in afterwards.
I wouldn't play that market with that big a range - I do think Clinton will edge NC but FL and AZ - I don't know.
And where is the £350/million for the NHS?
"Umpire's call" if you like.
If it's an attempt to persuade viewers/listeners that policies being suggested by Trump/Clinton/May/Corbyn are being warmly applauded spontaneously by an audience of uncommitted voters, then it might be considered manipulative, I suppose.
This goes far beyond butt hurt, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that people voted for X thinking they would actually get Y, or vice versa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA
As regards the spreads themselves, Sporting go:
Clinton ....... 292 - 302
Trump ........ 234 - 244
Spreadex go:
Clinton ....... 285 - 300
Trump ........ 237 - 252
538. com go:
Clinton ....... 294
Trump ........ 243
Now Brexit is cancelled, we are so much better off.
#Conservatives lead over #Labour among over-65s in today's @YouGov poll? 45% (60%-15%). Forty. Five.
Shame.
I'm not sure this is even a delay. Unless parliament really does vote it down and we have a GE in the middle.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/794198260831371264
#analogiesthatshouldnotbeusedonPB
At least the 48% knew what they were voting for.