''Malmesbury, my concern about this also revolves around the turnouts in the primaries. I think we may see a high turnout on Tuesday and I don't think that does suit HRC.''
I don;t know if anyone else has this experience. My office is solidly Clinton. And when I am there I am solidly Clinton. I go around with a hang dog expression, looking solemn.
Actually, I could n;t give a toss about Clinton and I think from a ''wrecking ball smash the establishment'' point of view one term of Donald Trump might not be the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to the United States of America.Compared, shall we say, with Pearl Harbour. Or Iwo Jima.
Of course I would never say that in office company. Which leads me to conclude that there MUST be a shy Trump vote. And a pretty big one.
that says more about you than other people. Trump voters are generally very loud
Mr. P, Mr. Watson wants to know what the deal is before it's negotiated. One suspects he's mischief-making, rather than someone who doesn't understand the direction in which time flows.
Also, Cameron is to blame. He forbade any contingency planning in case of a Leave victory, despite the polls being neck-and-neck. It was an active dereliction of duty.
There was nothing to stop the leading leavers, particularly on the Tory side who knew they would inherit the job if they won, sitting down and putting together an outline proposal and plan for leaving the EU. They didn't, because they knew that this would have made winning the vote less rather than more likely.
They didn't have the time to do a detailed plan. They did do an outline plan, but since they haven't become the government they cannot implement it.
p.s. and please can't people for once stay on topic? We're a little over a day away from an election in one of the most astonishing, bitter and now close US Presidential elections in living memory: the result of which will have a substantial impact on the western world and beyond.
To be honest Clinton is going to walk it. I lost interest some time ago and I think the interest will be post Clinton's election and how the US reacts to it
You're loss of interest explains your belief that Hillary's going to walk it. She's in desperate trouble in the African and European American sectors.
I do not like her at all but as the choice is Trump she will win
Well at least be informed about it, for instance Malmesbury's post above yours gives some explanation and, as an American citizen, he's suggesting to you and others that it's close. Which it is.
Malmesbury, my concern about this also revolves around the turnouts in the primaries. I think we may see a high turnout on Tuesday and I don't think that does suit HRC.
I'm also concerned about the relatively poor early voting turnout for her. There's apathy towards her among African-Americans in particular, voters who helped carry key states for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
This is knife-edge stuff. My latest figures suggest 268 v 268 but a few states either way will obviously tip it.
The only answer I can give is that I would give the highest probability to a narrow Hillary win. What that adds up to EVs is hard to say. A big win is now quite unlikely.
Trump *could* win - but I *think* the probabilities are something like 65% Hillary, 35% Trump.
That's just a wild guess, though. The turnout stuff makes this all incredibly chancy.
Every thread is now simply becoming a parody of the previous thread but each just becomes even more bitter, twisted and entrenched. I really don't see the point anymore.......
Cos Brexit is done and dusted. Nothing left to discuss.
Oh, wait...
I think we all feel the pain of bitter Leavers whose dreams of the hardest Brexit possible being inflicted on UK voters without any scrutiny or debate are rapidly turning to dust. They know now they may actually have to sell their case. Democracy really sucks, doesn't it?
Given that she got to be PM without even a vote of her own party members or MPs, never mind the electorate, it was extremely unwise to give the impression that she alone would decide what sort of Brexit we would get and then compound that high-handed approach by implying that parliament nor anybody else would get any say on when Article 50 is given or the final deal.
I am genuinely mystified as to why she took that approach and the only conclusion I can come up with is that she is actually not a very good politician.
Trump has to win every single tipping point state to win (OH/NC/FL/NH/NV). I expect HRC to scrape home, but with <300 ECV. The current prediction on RCP is for FL to vote DEM, which will be more than enough for HRC as it has 29 ECV.
Mr. P, the truth is we had the argument. The electorate made a choice.
£350m for the NHS...
Now that the Brexiteers have admitted that was bollocks, it is possible the electorate might want to discuss the implications of their choice and where we go next?
What you wish to do is to frustrate the choice that the voters have made.
They chose something which seems now not to have been on offer, Mr Fear, though the offer was definitely made. Is there a legal term for that sort of thing?
They chose to Leave. It was a straightforward binary choice,
The truth is precisely the opposite - our current travails arise from the choice in reality being neither binary nor straightforward.
p.s. and please can't people for once stay on topic? We're a little over a day away from an election in one of the most astonishing, bitter and now close US Presidential elections in living memory: the result of which will have a substantial impact on the western world and beyond.
To be honest Clinton is going to walk it. I lost interest some time ago and I think the interest will be post Clinton's election and how the US reacts to it
You're loss of interest explains your belief that Hillary's going to walk it. She's in desperate trouble in the African and European American sectors.
I do not like her at all but as the choice is Trump she will win
Well at least be informed about it, for instance Malmesbury's post above yours gives some explanation and, as an American citizen, he's suggesting to you and others that it's close. Which it is.
Malmesbury, my concern about this also revolves around the turnouts in the primaries. I think we may see a high turnout on Tuesday and I don't think that does suit HRC.
I'm also concerned about the relatively poor early voting turnout for her. There's apathy towards her among African-Americans in particular, voters who helped carry key states for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
This is knife-edge stuff. My latest figures suggest 268 v 268 but a few states either way will obviously tip it.
The only answer I can give is that I would give the highest probability to a narrow Hillary win. What that adds up to EVs is hard to say. A big win is now quite unlikely.
Trump *could* win - but I *think* the probabilities are something like 65% Hillary, 35% Trump.
That's just a wild guess, though. The turnout stuff makes this all incredibly chancy.
That chimes pretty much with my own view. Too many imponderables though to risk hard cash on a crap shoot.
''Malmesbury, my concern about this also revolves around the turnouts in the primaries. I think we may see a high turnout on Tuesday and I don't think that does suit HRC.''
I don;t know if anyone else has this experience. My office is solidly Clinton. And when I am there I am solidly Clinton. I go around with a hang dog expression, looking solemn.
Actually, I could n;t give a toss about Clinton and I think from a ''wrecking ball smash the establishment'' point of view one term of Donald Trump might not be the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to the United States of America.Compared, shall we say, with Pearl Harbour. Or Iwo Jima.
Of course I would never say that in office company. Which leads me to conclude that there MUST be a shy Trump vote. And a pretty big one.
that says more about you than other people. Trump voters are generally very loud
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
As people have been saying on Marr etc this morning, because we are a democracy we have to implement the outcome and try and make the best of it, somehow.
Without abandoning the rule of law
I absolutely agree with abiding by the law and obtaining HOC consent to serving A50. I do not agree with that process being hijacked by those who want to delay or even reverse the result
Every thread is now simply becoming a parody of the previous thread but each just becomes even more bitter, twisted and entrenched. I really don't see the point anymore.......
Cos Brexit is done and dusted. Nothing left to discuss.
Oh, wait...
I think we all feel the pain of bitter Leavers whose dreams of the hardest Brexit possible being inflicted on UK voters without any scrutiny or debate are rapidly turning to dust. They know now they may actually have to sell their case. Democracy really sucks, doesn't it?
Given that she got to be PM without even a vote of her own party members or MPs, never mind the electorate, it was extremely unwise to give the impression that she alone would decide what sort of Brexit we would get and then compound that high-handed approach by implying that parliament nor anybody else would get any say on when Article 50 is given or the final deal.
I am genuinely mystified as to why she took that approach and the only conclusion I can come up with is that she is actually not a very good politician.
Did she say Parliament wouldn't vote on the final deal? If she did, I missed it.
As people have been saying on Marr etc this morning, because we are a democracy we have to implement the outcome and try and make the best of it, somehow.
Without abandoning the rule of law
I absolutely agree with abiding by the law and obtaining HOC consent to serving A50. I do not agree with that process being hijacked by those who want to delay or even reverse the result
I remember you as one of the more thoughtful Remain posters before the Referendum. Where did it al go wrong?
Mr. P, Mr. Watson wants to know what the deal is before it's negotiated. One suspects he's mischief-making, rather than someone who doesn't understand the direction in which time flows.
Also, Cameron is to blame. He forbade any contingency planning in case of a Leave victory, despite the polls being neck-and-neck. It was an active dereliction of duty.
There was nothing to stop the leading leavers, particularly on the Tory side who knew they would inherit the job if they won, sitting down and putting together an outline proposal and plan for leaving the EU. They didn't, because they knew that this would have made winning the vote less rather than more likely.
They didn't have the time to do a detailed plan. They did do an outline plan, but since they haven't become the government they cannot implement it.
Boris didn't have time, for sure, since he was a leaver with only a few days' track record when the campaign started.
The rest of them, however - most had been frothing and fuming about the EU and our need to leave for decades. It beggars belief that at no state did any of them indulge their fantasies at a more rational level by sitting down and thinking out how we might go about it, including the many practical and political obstacles that would always make the ultimate 'just walk away and show them the finger' Brexit unrealistic in the real world.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
Cameron also said that he would recommend leave if he didn't get a good deal. He was full of crap.
Perhaps he felt he had a good deal. I know you, and others on here, disagree; then again, for some people *no* deal would have been good enough.
I'm not questioning the goodness of the deal, just the honesty of Cam's claim that he would have recommended Leave.
Oh, and remember that he said repeatedly that he would not resign if we voted Leave? Very full of crap.
As was pointed out at the time, it's the sort of question that he could only answer 'no' to. An answer of 'yes' would have encouraged possible remain voters who disliked him to vote leave.
As people have been saying on Marr etc this morning, because we are a democracy we have to implement the outcome and try and make the best of it, somehow.
Without abandoning the rule of law
I absolutely agree with abiding by the law and obtaining HOC consent to serving A50. I do not agree with that process being hijacked by those who want to delay or even reverse the result
Anyone who really wanted to mess things up would have waited until the process was well underway and then judicially reviewed the originating notification decision.
Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.
In the last 72 hours Trump is doing events in key states from Florida to Ohio to Iowa to Colorado to Nevada to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and North Carolina to give himself the broadest possible map to victory. Hillary meanwhile is just campaigning in Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania. As for polling denial RCP today has Clinton's national lead down to just 1. 8% which would make this the closest election since 2000 and Trump is ahead in more swing states than Romney was at this stage.
Team Hillary is in several more states than you name. If I've tallied correctly from the page given by edmundintokyo at the start of this thread, here are the numbers of GOTV events in the next two days by state:
1 Arizona 1 Florida 3 Michigan 1 Nevada 2 New Hampshire 3 North Carolina 1 Ohio 6 Pennsylvania 2 Virginia 3 Wisconsin
I suspect that he simply doesn't want to pay his pollster any more (regardless of what the numbers are showing). He's got a history of not wanting to fork his money out.
Every thread is now simply becoming a parody of the previous thread but each just becomes even more bitter, twisted and entrenched. I really don't see the point anymore.......
Cos Brexit is done and dusted. Nothing left to discuss.
Oh, wait...
I think we all feel the pain of bitter Leavers whose dreams of the hardest Brexit possible being inflicted on UK voters without any scrutiny or debate are rapidly turning to dust. They know now they may actually have to sell their case. Democracy really sucks, doesn't it?
Given that she got to be PM without even a vote of her own party members or MPs, never mind the electorate, it was extremely unwise to give the impression that she alone would decide what sort of Brexit we would get and then compound that high-handed approach by implying that parliament nor anybody else would get any say on when Article 50 is given or the final deal.
I am genuinely mystified as to why she took that approach and the only conclusion I can come up with is that she is actually not a very good politician.
More likely her legal advice was poor. Reckon the Attorney General may have a P45 on the way in the early new year
Tip: outside chance Dems gain Missouri Senate seate, good candidate.
Austyn Cripes ( real name ? ) described Trump as “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”. In my opinion the secret service dealt appropriately with this dangerously deluded individual.
He also appears to be involved in voter fraud if the screen shot evidence I've seen is accurate. He appears in a Wikileaks attachment, had a Hillary logo as his Facebook ident and his Twitter account was all very pro Hillary.
Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.
Because, leave having won, there is no-one able or willing to answer almost any of the even simple questions that people quite reasonably now want to ask.
As people have been saying on Marr etc this morning, because we are a democracy we have to implement the outcome and try and make the best of it, somehow.
Without abandoning the rule of law
I absolutely agree with abiding by the law and obtaining HOC consent to serving A50. I do not agree with that process being hijacked by those who want to delay or even reverse the result
I remember you as one of the more thoughtful Remain posters before the Referendum. Where did it al go wrong?
I became a democrat as quoted by Jeremy Hunt on Marr this am
Mr. P, Mr. Watson wants to know what the deal is before it's negotiated. One suspects he's mischief-making, rather than someone who doesn't understand the direction in which time flows.
Also, Cameron is to blame. He forbade any contingency planning in case of a Leave victory, despite the polls being neck-and-neck. It was an active dereliction of duty.
There was nothing to stop the leading leavers, particularly on the Tory side who knew they would inherit the job if they won, sitting down and putting together an outline proposal and plan for leaving the EU. They didn't, because they knew that this would have made winning the vote less rather than more likely.
They didn't have the time to do a detailed plan. They did do an outline plan, but since they haven't become the government they cannot implement it.
Boris didn't have time, for sure, since he was a leaver with only a few days' track record when the campaign started.
The rest of them, however - most had been frothing and fuming about the EU and our need to leave for decades. It beggars belief that at no state did any of them indulge their fantasies at a more rational level by sitting down and thinking out how we might go about it, including the many practical and political obstacles that would always make the ultimate 'just walk away and show them the finger' Brexit unrealistic in the real world.
Good point. We don't know if any plans they had have been incorporated into the secret negotiating strategy that the government is waiting to implement. If that's the case then a historic trawl through public statements by prominent exiters may be a useful direction for interviews
The "broad objective" is the best deal for the UK. Beyond that is negotiation.
And if the "best deal" is worse than we have now?
Tough. Leave won, so we are leaving regardless.
If any political party wishes to campaign on a platform of going back into the EU once we have left, then they are welcome to give it a try.
You can be very dismissive of that now but three years into Hard Brexit and who knows. Bear in mind the poll that showed 58% of Leave voters thinking they are going to be better off - Politics changes swiftly these days. Unfortunately I doubt the other 27 would have us back.
I'm still waiting for the higher interest rates that nice Mr Osborne promised me. Was he telling porkies?
You got massive inflation. What more do you want?
What massive inflation rate? Just puerile* nonsense. Inflation is 1% CPI and 2% RPI.
*childishly silly and immature
An awful lot of things are about to go up by 15%, which I don't think can be described as insignificant. Fuel is already on the way; food prices will be rising by Christmas. As it happens I am about to commit to replacing my kitchen and the cost of most appliances rises by about 15% for orders placed after 14 November.
There's a lag in exchange rates feeding through to prices, because companies hold stock, hedge their currency exposure, and in the short-term often absorb the hit. There's also a lag before prices feed through to reported CPI and of course the reports are themselves made well in arrears.
Overall, the B o E expects inflation to peak at 2.7%. For most of my lifetime, governments would have been content with that.
I would expect 3.5-4.0% in spot inflation to be a more realistic peak. That assumes that the pound doesn't slide still further (as a lot of financiers expect) and that the initial inflation spike doesn't feed through to a cycle of future increases through higher interest rates and rising wages.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
Cameron also said that he would recommend leave if he didn't get a good deal. He was full of crap.
Perhaps he felt he had a good deal. I know you, and others on here, disagree; then again, for some people *no* deal would have been good enough.
I'm not questioning the goodness of the deal, just the honesty of Cam's claim that he would have recommended Leave.
Oh, and remember that he said repeatedly that he would not resign if we voted Leave? Very full of crap.
As was pointed out at the time, it's the sort of question that he could only answer 'no' to. An answer of 'yes' would have encouraged possible remain voters who disliked him to vote leave.
'Look, we had an election last year. We elected a Conservative government with me as Prime Minister. This referendum isn't about who forms or leads the government and I urge all voters to vote purely on the merits of the question on the ballot.'
I suspect that he simply doesn't want to pay his pollster any more (regardless of what the numbers are showing). He's got a history of not wanting to fork his money out.
He's given his campaign $100m - and that's without the costs of his aircraft et al. Obama is using Airforce One to campaign for Hillary and billing the taxpayer I presume.
Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.
Because, leave having won, there is no-one able or willing to answer almost any of the even simple questions that people quite reasonably now want to ask.
It's not that they aren't being answered, it's that people don't want to hear it.
A50 by March 2017. Control of borders allied to maximum achievable free access within the border control scenario. EU law embedded in UK law and then revised and repealed at leisure. Scoping talks already underway with prospective trade partners.
People need to let the government get on with serving notice.
Tip: outside chance Dems gain Missouri Senate seate, good candidate.
Austyn Cripes ( real name ? ) described Trump as “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”. In my opinion the secret service dealt appropriately with this dangerously deluded individual.
He also appears to be involved in voter fraud if the screen shot evidence I've seen is accurate. He appears in a Wikileaks attachment, had a Hillary logo as his Facebook ident and his Twitter account was all very pro Hillary.
I suspect that he simply doesn't want to pay his pollster any more (regardless of what the numbers are showing). He's got a history of not wanting to fork his money out.
He's given his campaign $100m - and that's without the costs of his aircraft et al. Obama is using Airforce One to campaign for Hillary and billing the taxpayer I presume.
Costs of his aircraft? The campaign is paying a Trump company for the aircraft! Trump is making money on it.
@RCorbettMEP: #farage now whipping it up on #marr, threatening violence in the streets - even if we leave EU and stay just in single market
Well, what alternative does he have? His party tried democracy. They won 1 (one) seat.
And he couldn't even win a seat himself even though he got to choose the best prospect UKIP had. He's plays up his avuncular image but underneath he's a nasty bitter piece of work.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
Cameron also said that he would recommend leave if he didn't get a good deal. He was full of crap.
Perhaps he felt he had a good deal. I know you, and others on here, disagree; then again, for some people *no* deal would have been good enough.
I'm not questioning the goodness of the deal, just the honesty of Cam's claim that he would have recommended Leave.
Oh, and remember that he said repeatedly that he would not resign if we voted Leave? Very full of crap.
As was pointed out at the time, it's the sort of question that he could only answer 'no' to. An answer of 'yes' would have encouraged possible remain voters who disliked him to vote leave.
'Look, we had an election last year. We elected a Conservative government with me as Prime Minister. This referendum isn't about who forms or leads the government and I urge all voters to vote purely on the merits of the question on the ballot.'
Mr. P, the truth is we had the argument. The electorate made a choice.
£350m for the NHS...
Now that the Brexiteers have admitted that was bollocks, it is possible the electorate might want to discuss the implications of their choice and where we go next?
What you wish to do is to frustrate the choice that the voters have made.
They chose something which seems now not to have been on offer, Mr Fear, though the offer was definitely made. Is there a legal term for that sort of thing?
They chose to Leave. It was a straightforward binary choice,
The truth is precisely the opposite - our current travails arise from the choice in reality being neither binary nor straightforward.
Kippers are already saying that any 'watering down' of Brexit would be a betrayal of democracy.
The problem with a broad coalition for an ill-defined outcome is that too many incompatible groups think they're won.
The "broad objective" is the best deal for the UK. Beyond that is negotiation.
And if the "best deal" is worse than we have now?
Tough. Leave won, so we are leaving regardless.
If any political party wishes to campaign on a platform of going back into the EU once we have left, then they are welcome to give it a try.
You can be very dismissive of that now but three years into Hard Brexit and who knows. Bear in mind the poll that showed 58% of Leave voters thinking they are going to be better off - Politics changes swiftly these days. Unfortunately I doubt the other 27 would have us back.
Well, economic growth forecasts are rocketing - so perhaps they were right?
Oh, and mortgage rates fell....exports are expanding....the tourist and hospitality sector is thriving..... wages continue to grow much faster than inflation...
Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.
Because, leave having won, there is no-one able or willing to answer almost any of the even simple questions that people quite reasonably now want to ask.
It's not that they aren't being answered, it's that people don't want to hear it.
A50 by March 2017. Control of borders allied to maximum achievable free access within the border control scenario. EU law embedded in UK law and then revised and repealed at leisure. Scoping talks already underway with prospective trade partners.
People need to let the government get on with serving notice.
Tip: outside chance Dems gain Missouri Senate seate, good candidate.
Austyn Cripes ( real name ? ) described Trump as “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”. In my opinion the secret service dealt appropriately with this dangerously deluded individual.
He also appears to be involved in voter fraud if the screen shot evidence I've seen is accurate. He appears in a Wikileaks attachment, had a Hillary logo as his Facebook ident and his Twitter account was all very pro Hillary.
p.s. and please can't people for once stay on topic? We're a little over a day away from an election in one of the most astonishing, bitter and now close US Presidential elections in living memory: the result of which will have a substantial impact on the western world and beyond.
Iain Martin, another right-wing Leaver, embarrassed by the hard-Right witch hunt against the judiciary:
Nigel Farage was furious at this supposed incursion. He said that he had a “feeling” (ah, one of his feelings) that “betrayal is near”. Farage in full flow talks in almost mystical terms, as if he has some form of extrasensory perception that provides him with a unique insight into the course of national affairs and the tide of opinion. Having had such an enormous influence on shaping recent history, perhaps the trainee demagogue has started to fall for his own hype?
When I try to answer the $64,000 question 'How can even one person vote for Trump let alone half the US' I always think of Arizona. The most unfamiliar people I've met whose native language is English. The whole crew of 50 went to church every Sunday which was a first but that wasn't it. They had a macho culture which I haven't seen before that wasted hours every day." You want the camera mounted 6" off the ground?" We can hand hold it from a moving vehicle......" What!! and they 'whooped' after every take.......
When the status quo is seen as, at best, a more gradual decline, people don't just want change they think it is essential. Trump represents change; Clinton clearly doesn't. It's an age not just when politicians are despised but when people are prepared to take them on in the ballot. Clinton is the politician's politician.
On PB where we are interested in results, we're the opposite of the low information voter and know this to be nonsense. Trump is just as much a politician as Clinton is, and maybe a cynical politician with mental health issues at that.
The problem with the clamour for "change" both here and in the US a lot of people rarely stop to think of what the change will be and what its consequences are.
I suspect that he simply doesn't want to pay his pollster any more (regardless of what the numbers are showing). He's got a history of not wanting to fork his money out.
He's given his campaign $100m - and that's without the costs of his aircraft et al. Obama is using Airforce One to campaign for Hillary and billing the taxpayer I presume.
Air Force One will be billed to the HRC campaign for the commercial cost of the flights. Since Obama is not the first president to campaign for himself or his party, the rules are long-established.
Mr. P, we had a referendum campaign, and a vote. The economic collapse prophesied by the Remain campaigns hasn't emerged (the pound has fallen significantly but growth remains good, as does employment).
It's despicable to try and keep asking the electorate the same question until they give you an answer with which you agree.
The electorate voted to leave, and expect us to leave, not to have the political class decide the plebs got it wrong.
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
In the last 72 hours Trump is doing events in key states from Florida to Ohio to Iowa to Colorado to Nevada to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and North Carolina to give himself the broadest possible map to victory. Hillary meanwhile is just campaigning in Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania. As for polling denial RCP today has Clinton's national lead down to just 1. 8% which would make this the closest election since 2000 and Trump is ahead in more swing states than Romney was at this stage.
Team Hillary is in several more states than you name. If I've tallied correctly from the page given by edmundintokyo at the start of this thread, here are the numbers of GOTV events in the next two days by state:
1 Arizona 1 Florida 3 Michigan 1 Nevada 2 New Hampshire 3 North Carolina 1 Ohio 6 Pennsylvania 2 Virginia 3 Wisconsin
Key words 'Team Hillary' i.e. mostly not Hillary herself. Meanwhile Trump is personally doing rally after rally to get his white working class base out to vote, Hillary is relying on the Obamas to get out the African American vote for her who have little enthusiasm for her and whose turnout is generally down on 2012.
Mr. P, we had a referendum campaign, and a vote. The economic collapse prophesied by the Remain campaigns hasn't emerged (the pound has fallen significantly but growth remains good, as does employment).
It's despicable to try and keep asking the electorate the same question until they give you an answer with which you agree.
The electorate voted to leave, and expect us to leave, not to have the political class decide the plebs got it wrong.
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
Poor Morris has withdrawal symptoms as there appears to be no cars-driving-round-in-fast-circles going on today?
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
You could have accurately reached that conclusion without watching.
Mr. P, we had a referendum campaign, and a vote. The economic collapse prophesied by the Remain campaigns hasn't emerged (the pound has fallen significantly but growth remains good, as does employment).
It's despicable to try and keep asking the electorate the same question until they give you an answer with which you agree.
The electorate voted to leave, and expect us to leave, not to have the political class decide the plebs got it wrong.
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
How does that fit with recent utterances from the likes of Nick Clegg and the Labour party
Mr. P, the truth is we had the argument. The electorate made a choice.
£350m for the NHS...
Now that the Brexiteers have admitted that was bollocks, it is possible the electorate might want to discuss the implications of their choice and where we go next?
What you wish to do is to frustrate the choice that the voters have made.
They chose something which seems now not to have been on offer, Mr Fear, though the offer was definitely made. Is there a legal term for that sort of thing?
They chose to Leave. It was a straightforward binary choice,
The truth is precisely the opposite - our current travails arise from the choice in reality being neither binary nor straightforward.
Kippers are already saying that any 'watering down' of Brexit would be a betrayal of democracy.
The problem with a broad coalition for an ill-defined outcome is that too many incompatible groups think they're won.
The bolsheviks were never going to take power in one go; winning a revolution is a multi-stage game.
I'm still waiting for the higher interest rates that nice Mr Osborne promised me. Was he telling porkies?
You got massive inflation. What more do you want?
What massive inflation rate? Just puerile* nonsense. Inflation is 1% CPI and 2% RPI.
*childishly silly and immature
An awful lot of things are about to go up by 15%, which I don't think can be described as insignificant. Fuel is already on the way; food prices will be rising by Christmas. As it happens I am about to commit to replacing my kitchen and the cost of most appliances rises by about 15% for orders placed after 14 November.
There's a lag in exchange rates feeding through to prices, because companies hold stock, hedge their currency exposure, and in the short-term often absorb the hit. There's also a lag before prices feed through to reported CPI and of course the reports are themselves made well in arrears.
Overall, the B o E expects inflation to peak at 2.7%. For most of my lifetime, governments would have been content with that.
I would expect 3.5-4.0% in spot inflation to be a more realistic peak. That assumes that the pound doesn't slide still further (as a lot of financiers expect) and that the initial inflation spike doesn't feed through to a cycle of future increases through higher interest rates and rising wages.
What special knowledge do you have which makes you doubt the BoE? I'm not doubting that's your view but what's the analysis basis (noting as well you abstractly project higher).
Mr. P, we had a referendum campaign, and a vote. The economic collapse prophesied by the Remain campaigns hasn't emerged (the pound has fallen significantly but growth remains good, as does employment).
It's despicable to try and keep asking the electorate the same question until they give you an answer with which you agree.
The electorate voted to leave, and expect us to leave, not to have the political class decide the plebs got it wrong.
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
How does that fit with recent utterances from the likes of Nick Clegg and the Labour party
They both intend to argue and vote for their preferred soft Brexit. In a democracy, what is wrong with that?
In the last 72 hours Trump is doing events in key states from Florida to Ohio to Iowa to Colorado to Nevada to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and North Carolina to give himself the broadest possible map to victory. Hillary meanwhile is just campaigning in Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania. As for polling denial RCP today has Clinton's national lead down to just 1. 8% which would make this the closest election since 2000 and Trump is ahead in more swing states than Romney was at this stage.
Team Hillary is in several more states than you name. If I've tallied correctly from the page given by edmundintokyo at the start of this thread, here are the numbers of GOTV events in the next two days by state:
1 Arizona 1 Florida 3 Michigan 1 Nevada 2 New Hampshire 3 North Carolina 1 Ohio 6 Pennsylvania 2 Virginia 3 Wisconsin
Key words 'Team Hillary' i.e. mostly not Hillary herself. Meanwhile Trump is personally doing rally after rally to get his white working class base out to vote, Hillary is relying on the Obamas to get out the African American vote for her who have little enthusiasm for her and whose turnout is generally down on 2012.
So what? Chances are most of Team Hillary are better speakers than the candidate herself. Unless you have any reason to believe the opposite, then for betting purposes we need to look at the whole picture.
I'd suggest the schedule shows they are anxious to tie up Pennsylvania especially -- six events including Joe Biden, Michelle and Barack Obama as well as Chelsea, Bill and Hillary herself.
Right so - if you go by polling then Hillary has this locked up.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump. Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome.
"Are you saying PM that your opponents in this election would achieve the worst possible outcome? On what basis can you make that claim?"
Carnage
This election is about who you want to lead this country. The team we have put together is wonderful. Mr Corbyn and his team have a track record of [whatever the theme of the day is]. We believe the choice is clear.
May's probably best off not referencing her team. She should keep it to her versus Corbyn. Beyond that comparison the Tories lose their edge very quickly.
She might find a role for Hammond. Otherwise agreed.
You think?
May-v-Corbyn
Hammond-v-McDonnell
Abbot-v-Anyone with a pulse.
Thornberry-v-Anyone even without a pulse.
Griffith-v-anyone who actually believes in defence.
Burgon-v-a tub of lard.
etc etc
I mean, this is a much weaker cabinet than Dave had but jeez....
May towers above Corbyn; Hammond beats McDonnell. Beyond that, the Tories still win, but the standard gets very low very quickly. Best keep them away from the cameras as you can't trust what they will say. Use Boris for internal confidence boosting.
The Tories are unbelievably fortunate that most Labour party members do not need a Labour government or fear a Tory one. If that changes before May calls a general election the political landscape could change very quickly.
Good grief SO, hyperbole much?
Even if every single Labour party members wanted a Labour government it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference. Labour polling is at its worst for generations - not just because of a few useless leaders, but because the party doesn't represent voters anymore. The problem is the party itself. A special interest group for metropolitans with outdated views for the 90s, let alone the 2010s. The world has moved on from socialism.
I agree. But I struggle to see the Tories representing anyone beyond a few key interest groups too. A competent opposition would be taking this thoroughly mediocre, hopelessly divided government to the cleaners.
SO, the tragedy is that at such a crucial time this mediocre government is going to have a completely free hand and that rarely works out well even with good governments. Corbyn is beyond an irrelevance, three-quarters of the country are just laughing at him, it would be funny if the consequences weren't so tragic.
I'm still waiting for the higher interest rates that nice Mr Osborne promised me. Was he telling porkies?
You got massive inflation. What more do you want?
What massive inflation rate? Just puerile* nonsense. Inflation is 1% CPI and 2% RPI.
*childishly silly and immature
An awful lot of things are about to go up by 15%, which I don't think can be described as insignificant. Fuel is already on the way; food prices will be rising by Christmas. As it happens I am about to commit to replacing my kitchen and the cost of most appliances rises by about 15% for orders placed after 14 November.
There's a lag in exchange rates feeding through to prices, because companies hold stock, hedge their currency exposure, and in the short-term often absorb the hit. There's also a lag before prices feed through to reported CPI and of course the reports are themselves made well in arrears.
Overall, the B o E expects inflation to peak at 2.7%. For most of my lifetime, governments would have been content with that.
I would expect 3.5-4.0% in spot inflation to be a more realistic peak. That assumes that the pound doesn't slide still further (as a lot of financiers expect) and that the initial inflation spike doesn't feed through to a cycle of future increases through higher interest rates and rising wages.
What special knowledge do you have which makes you doubt the BoE? I'm not doubting that's your view but what's the analysis basis (noting as well you abstractly project higher).
I am amused at the suggestion that all of a sudden it now needs special knowledge in order to doubt the Bank of England? Good luck when you try that line with other PB'ers!
As it happens, last week I was reading a range of analysis from respected commentators, in the serious press and on websites like Hargreaves landsdown, and one of them was forecasting peak 2017 inflation at 4.0%. Given my current experience of ordering a new kitchen the 3.5-4% range happens to match my own judgement.
It is certainly true that there is a lot of deflationary pressure in the economy, since QE has had lots of side-effects but fuelling inflation surprised by not being one of them. So my base case would be that inflation then drifts downwards - unless those predicting £ parity with first € then $ prove to be right, of course - in this latter case we'd be looking at 3%+ inflation for seversl years at least.
I'm not sure which of Osborne's bribes for votes was more damaging in socioeconomic terms - subsidising house prices or triple lock pensions.
' The "triple-lock" on state pensions - which has protected the incomes of the older generation since 2010 - should be scrapped, a committee of MPs has said. '
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
Immigration from India of the fill-out-all-the-paperwork-for-white-collar-jobs kind is *at the moment* incredibly restricted. Mandatory health checks, mandatory private health insurance, an effective points based system (your professional qualifications are assessed), signed (legal penalties) statement from the company trying to import you that they have tried to find an EU (giggle) worker to fill the vacancy....
I'm on maximum jinx setting - as I have bet £100 on Arsenal to win, have Sanchez as FF captain, have played every gunner and dropped my Spurs players...
I'm still not sure even then I'll have managed to help us avoid a defeat but anyway COYS
I'm still waiting for the higher interest rates that nice Mr Osborne promised me. Was he telling porkies?
You got massive inflation. What more do you want?
What massive inflation rate? Just puerile* nonsense. Inflation is 1% CPI and 2% RPI.
*childishly silly and immature
An awful lot of things are about to go up by 15%, which I don't think can be described as insignificant. Fuel is already on the way; food prices will be rising by Christmas. As it happens I am about to commit to replacing my kitchen and the cost of most appliances rises by about 15% for orders placed after 14 November.
There's a lag in exchange rates feeding through to prices, because companies hold stock, hedge their currency exposure, and in the short-term often absorb the hit. There's also a lag before prices feed through to reported CPI and of course the reports are themselves made well in arrears.
Overall, the B o E expects inflation to peak at 2.7%. For most of my lifetime, governments would have been content with that.
I would expect 3.5-4.0% in spot inflation to be a more realistic peak. That assumes that the pound doesn't slide still further (as a lot of financiers expect) and that the initial inflation spike doesn't feed through to a cycle of future increases through higher interest rates and rising wages.
What special knowledge do you have which makes you doubt the BoE? I'm not doubting that's your view but what's the analysis basis (noting as well you abstractly project higher).
I am amused at the suggestion that all of a sudden it now needs special knowledge in order to doubt the Bank of England? Good luck when you try that line with other PB'ers!
As it happens, last week I was reading a range of analysis from respected commentators, in the serious press and on websites like Hargreaves landsdown, and one of them was forecasting peak 2017 inflation at 4.0%. Given my current experience of ordering a new kitchen the 3.5-4% range happens to match my own judgement.
It is certainly true that there is a lot of deflationary pressure in the economy, since QE has had lots of side-effects but fuelling inflation surprised by not being one of them. So my base case would be that inflation then drifts downwards - unless those predicting £ parity with first € then $ prove to be right, of course - in this latter case we'd be looking at 3%+ inflation for seversl years at least.
Are you suggesting the economic consequences of a near £300bn current account deficit over the last three years might happen ?
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
Apparently a trade deal with India would be a bit of a dead-end anyway - too many logistical and bureaucratic obstacles for it to be appealing to British firms. Moreover, British brands don't sell that well amongst the colonials anyway.
Right so - if you go by polling then Hillary has this locked up.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump. Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
Every day in the election campaign she will be asked 'what do you mean by the best deal for Britain?' What does that mean?
And the follow up question "Are you suggesting your opponents would pursue the worst deal for Britain?"
It wouldn't survive the first day of a GE campaign.
A manifesto with 24 blank pages where the policies should be.
Carnage.
In line with the views expressed by the voters of this country we will seek control of immigration going forward. We also recognise the importance of trade and will seek access to the European market on the best possible terms. Of course, any negotiation involves two parties and we look forward to working with our European partners in the the spirit of constructive engagement.
Next question please.
What are the best possible terms? Will you sacrifice jobs and growth to control immigration from the EU? Will pensioners living in Spain currently have to come home? And so on.
Any negotiation involves two parties and I am not in a position to comment on where the EU is prepared to compromise in order to establish a positive long-term cooperation with the United Kingdom. I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome.
The problem with "I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome." is that the 'best possible outcome" is highly dependent on the perspective of the viewer. Worse, that perspective has been corrupted by the highly divergent and incompatible claims of the various leave campaigns.
It is going to be a very hard sell, and she will have to expend a large amount of political capital that she might not have, even with Labour's problems.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Mr. P, we had a referendum campaign, and a vote. The economic collapse prophesied by the Remain campaigns hasn't emerged (the pound has fallen significantly but growth remains good, as does employment).
It's despicable to try and keep asking the electorate the same question until they give you an answer with which you agree.
The electorate voted to leave, and expect us to leave, not to have the political class decide the plebs got it wrong.
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
How does that fit with recent utterances from the likes of Nick Clegg and the Labour party
They both intend to argue and vote for their preferred soft Brexit. In a democracy, what is wrong with that?
But they've linked it to voting for triggering article 50
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Are you suggesting that we simply stop making budgetary contributions to the EU, even before leaving it?
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
Immigration from India of the fill-out-all-the-paperwork-for-white-collar-jobs kind is *at the moment* incredibly restricted. Mandatory health checks, mandatory private health insurance, an effective points based system (your professional qualifications are assessed), signed (legal penalties) statement from the company trying to import you that they have tried to find an EU (giggle) worker to fill the vacancy....
If they were less restricted, imagine what this graph would look like.
Top 10 nationalities issued work-related visas, 2012
Just for info - there's a lot of buggering about going on.
Bill Mitchell In the ABC Poll, Trump has gone from a 19 point lead to now tied w/ Independents in a week! Lol, THAT is preposterous.
bill mitchell also thinks Clinton is a satanist. He is almost as much of a moron as divorced dilbert
Judging by the ingredients of the Spirit Dinners enjoyed by Podesta and the Clinton Set, I'd be wary of the buffet at Hillary's victory party.
There's a big jump in Latinos for Trump in LA Times poll - could be nonsense or linked to the whole spirit dinner stuff. I've seen a lot of negative comment from Latinos about it - and a fair number of Blacks. The assumption is it's either devil worship or seriously creepy and unChristian.
It's beyond icky and weird. And Lady Gaga and Jay Z are all there too, and photographed with little kid? And Podesta has a picture hanging in his office of what looks exactly like a spirit dinner. He's photographed with it right behind it.
Mr. Dawning, the Indian Grand Prix was pretty short-lived. That was a good thing, because the track was arguably the worst ever designed.
However, the reasoning was effectively bureaucratic. The Indian authorities wanted to charge F1 teams income tax (at 1/20 the normal rate because it was one race out of about 20) and this bureaucratic nonsense did not endear them to the teams. [There may have been more red tape making logistics tricky too].
Mr. Urquhart, timing probably makes sense. By going for Raqqa as Iraqi forces go for Mosul, ISIS has to fight on two fronts and Mosul can't reinforce Raqqa, nor Raqqa reinforce Mosul.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/795061208143560704
Trump *could* win - but I *think* the probabilities are something like 65% Hillary, 35% Trump.
That's just a wild guess, though. The turnout stuff makes this all incredibly chancy.
I am genuinely mystified as to why she took that approach and the only conclusion I can come up with is that she is actually not a very good politician.
Oh, and remember that he said repeatedly that he would not resign if we voted Leave? Very full of crap.
The rest of them, however - most had been frothing and fuming about the EU and our need to leave for decades. It beggars belief that at no state did any of them indulge their fantasies at a more rational level by sitting down and thinking out how we might go about it, including the many practical and political obstacles that would always make the ultimate 'just walk away and show them the finger' Brexit unrealistic in the real world.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.
1 Arizona
1 Florida
3 Michigan
1 Nevada
2 New Hampshire
3 North Carolina
1 Ohio
6 Pennsylvania
2 Virginia
3 Wisconsin
https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
If that is matched elsewhwere...
He's a bird dog and it backfired all over him.
It's going to be neglected this year by it's most vociferous advocates as they try to drum up the Brexit Inflation Crisis.
It's a hard life being a Crisis. Some years they want you; some years they neglect you.
A50 by March 2017. Control of borders allied to maximum achievable free access within the border control scenario. EU law embedded in UK law and then revised and repealed at leisure. Scoping talks already underway with prospective trade partners.
People need to let the government get on with serving notice.
And he couldn't even win a seat himself even though he got to choose the best prospect UKIP had. He's plays up his avuncular image but underneath he's a nasty bitter piece of work.
The problem with a broad coalition for an ill-defined outcome is that too many incompatible groups think they're won.
Oh, and mortgage rates fell....exports are expanding....the tourist and hospitality sector is thriving..... wages continue to grow much faster than inflation...
Bill Mitchell
In the ABC Poll, Trump has gone from a 19 point lead to now tied w/ Independents in a week! Lol, THAT is preposterous.
Nigel Farage was furious at this supposed incursion. He said that he had a “feeling” (ah, one of his feelings) that “betrayal is near”. Farage in full flow talks in almost mystical terms, as if he has some form of extrasensory perception that provides him with a unique insight into the course of national affairs and the tide of opinion. Having had such an enormous influence on shaping recent history, perhaps the trainee demagogue has started to fall for his own hype?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/06/why-the-brexit-judges-were-right-article-50
Mr Dancer, I think you are overstating the situation - the debate now is surely not really about trying to overturn the referendum result but about the type of Brexit we get. I like your considered posts - please don't go all "Daily Mail" on us!
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
I'd suggest the schedule shows they are anxious to tie up Pennsylvania especially -- six events including Joe Biden, Michelle and Barack Obama as well as Chelsea, Bill and Hillary herself.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump.
Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
Mr. B2, that would explain why my wallet doesn't seem to have been emptied
As it happens, last week I was reading a range of analysis from respected commentators, in the serious press and on websites like Hargreaves landsdown, and one of them was forecasting peak 2017 inflation at 4.0%. Given my current experience of ordering a new kitchen the 3.5-4% range happens to match my own judgement.
It is certainly true that there is a lot of deflationary pressure in the economy, since QE has had lots of side-effects but fuelling inflation surprised by not being one of them. So my base case would be that inflation then drifts downwards - unless those predicting £ parity with first € then $ prove to be right, of course - in this latter case we'd be looking at 3%+ inflation for seversl years at least.
'Surely what is meant is Single Markets membership or at least Customs Union? '
So remaining in the EU in all but name ?
' The "triple-lock" on state pensions - which has protected the incomes of the older generation since 2010 - should be scrapped, a committee of MPs has said. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37871681
I'm on maximum jinx setting - as I have bet £100 on Arsenal to win, have Sanchez as FF captain, have played every gunner and dropped my Spurs players...
I'm still not sure even then I'll have managed to help us avoid a defeat but anyway COYS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37889133
According to Sunil and Stodge East London is still awash with fake 'colleges'.
It is huge (if you don't like immigration) and she either couldn't or didn't want to do anything about it when she was HS.
I worry that whether EU immigration comes down or not, there will be a nasty anti-general immigration movement (hopefully small 'm') before too long.
Top 10 nationalities issued work-related visas, 2012
(Total 145,110)
It's beyond icky and weird. And Lady Gaga and Jay Z are all there too, and photographed with little kid? And Podesta has a picture hanging in his office of what looks exactly like a spirit dinner. He's photographed with it right behind it.
Clearly I've lead a sheltered life.
However, the reasoning was effectively bureaucratic. The Indian authorities wanted to charge F1 teams income tax (at 1/20 the normal rate because it was one race out of about 20) and this bureaucratic nonsense did not endear them to the teams. [There may have been more red tape making logistics tricky too].
Mr. Urquhart, timing probably makes sense. By going for Raqqa as Iraqi forces go for Mosul, ISIS has to fight on two fronts and Mosul can't reinforce Raqqa, nor Raqqa reinforce Mosul.