Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
I'm going for 3 states to flip....North Carolina to Hillary and Iowa and Ohio for Trump...(although I'm still betting on Ohio in the blue column and think this could stay Red)
Vote share 47.5/43.5- a 4% lead for HRC....
This is my thought too
Just a touch closer and the Remainiacs will declare it indecisive and demand a new Election :-).
Mr. NorthWales, did Miller have any explanation for her ridiculous rhetoric?
It is overblown, and does her no credit. However May wanted to start the A50 process in a way that the courts have now found illegal (though it could be reversed on appeal), and continuing down that route without legal authority would be the actions of a tin-pot dictator (*). But May's not doing that.
I know you want A50 started and Brexit to happen. So do I - and I believe it would be best for it to happen as soon as possible. But it has to be done lawfully.
It's not as if the court has said there should be no Brexit: they've just said that there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny. I fail to see why so many people think that's a bad thing.
(*) Besides, there's no sense in being a tin-pot dictator nowadays. Much better to go the Putin route and be a dictator with the semblances of democratic credibility whilst ruthlessly controlling the private state. This is the route Erdogan is also going down.
Miller was very confrontational on Sky and is only stoking anger in much the same way as Farage is.
I absolutely agree with the HoC getting a vote on A50 as it is very unlikely to be defeated in view of the 75% or so of constituencies that voted leave. Of course the Supreme Court could reverse the decision
She sounds like she's enjoying her proverbial fifteen minutes.
One unfortunate parallel between the UK and US politics is the increasing divisiveness of the rhetoric, and demonisation of opponents. It's making watching and reading about politics (including on here sometimes) increasingly frustrating with its childishness.
Fiorentina have just scored....my windows almost shatter with the crowd noise when the wind blows my way.....
This is a great story - the "official" explanation is even more bizarre than UFOs!
"On October 27, 1954, a reserve game between Fiorentina and nearby rivals Pistoiese was under way at the Stadio Artemio Franchi when a group of UFOs traveling at high speed abruptly stopped over the stadium. The stadium became silent as the crowd of around 10,000 spectators witnessed the event and described the UFOs as cigar shaped. It was suggested that the most likely explanation was that the silk of mass migrating spiders had agglomerated high in the atmosphere."
Where the heck did you get that story from? It is all of course very plausible...except for one key fact that makes a complete mockery of the truth....the crowd..for a reserve game, it is highly unlikely that there were 10,000 fans there....maybe 9,000
I presume it's already been commented on, but another similarity between Trump and Corbyn is of course their open disdain, bordering on contempt, for the mainstream media. This, following an era in which careful cultivation of the press had been regarded as an essential part of a successful election campaign.
But Corbyn's isn't fuelled by a desire to set up his own media empire.
I presume it's already been commented on, but another similarity between Trump and Corbyn is of course their open disdain, bordering on contempt, for the mainstream media. This, following an era in which careful cultivation of the press had been regarded as an essential part of a successful election campaign.
I'm not sure that Trump has exactly avoided the mainstream media over the last few decades, especially when it makes TV shows centred on him.
Where Corbyn and Trump probably agree is that they want to control the media.
CA's population has grown by 18% since 2004, but the *raw* number of registered Rs has gone down by 12%! Number of Ds has grown by 22%. Also wwc voters better spread in swing states than either Lationos or College educated whites.
That's a relief, I've done some money buying in California.
Where did you get your 'value' odds?
1-48 on Betfair at the moment.
Nate Silver has it as a 1-1000 chance.
Ah, thanks. Betfair screwed up my a/c during GE-2015 and I haven't got round to re-opening one.
In terms of buying money, I'm actually wondering what the odds will be on the Sleaford byelection.
In view of Corbyn's volte face today and the noises coming from labour today I do not see labour obstructing A50
Labour will not obstruct A50 but all the skulduggery will begin after.
Once A50 is served negotiations will commence and it will only be a some later date that the outline of a deal will become apparent and it is correct at that time for the HoC to scrutinise the deal and options.
As I understand it the options will be:
1. Leave with the deal.
2. Leave with no deal.
You may well be right but the way the frictions are growing in the EU particularly between the Nations and the Commission with Junckers trying to dictate German Industrial policy I believe that within a year the EU will be a very different place with various leaders gone and the dilution of the commission's influence and the serving of a P45 on Junckers
Mr. NorthWales, did Miller have any explanation for her ridiculous rhetoric?
It is overblown, and does her no credit. However May wanted to start the A50 process in a way that the courts have now found illegal (though it could be reversed on appeal), and continuing down that route without legal authority would be the actions of a tin-pot dictator (*). But May's not doing that.
I know you want A50 started and Brexit to happen. So do I - and I believe it would be best for it to happen as soon as possible. But it has to be done lawfully.
It's not as if the court has said there should be no Brexit: they've just said that there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny. I fail to see why so many people think that's a bad thing.
(*) Besides, there's no sense in being a tin-pot dictator nowadays. Much better to go the Putin route and be a dictator with the semblances of democratic credibility whilst ruthlessly controlling the private state. This is the route Erdogan is also going down.
Miller was very confrontational on Sky and is only stoking anger in much the same way as Farage is.
I absolutely agree with the HoC getting a vote on A50 as it is very unlikely to be defeated in view of the 75% or so of constituencies that voted leave. Of course the Supreme Court could reverse the decision
She sounds like she's enjoying her proverbial fifteen minutes.
One unfortunate parallel between the UK and US politics is the increasing divisiveness of the rhetoric, and demonisation of opponents. It's making watching and reading about politics (including on here sometimes) increasingly frustrating with its childishness.
Fiorentina have just scored....my windows almost shatter with the crowd noise when the wind blows my way.....
This is a great story - the "official" explanation is even more bizarre than UFOs!
"On October 27, 1954, a reserve game between Fiorentina and nearby rivals Pistoiese was under way at the Stadio Artemio Franchi when a group of UFOs traveling at high speed abruptly stopped over the stadium. The stadium became silent as the crowd of around 10,000 spectators witnessed the event and described the UFOs as cigar shaped. It was suggested that the most likely explanation was that the silk of mass migrating spiders had agglomerated high in the atmosphere."
Where the heck did you get that story from? It is all of course very plausible...except for one key fact that makes a complete mockery of the truth....the crowd..for a reserve game, it is highly unlikely that there were 10,000 fans there....maybe 9,000
I don't think there was much else to do in post-war Florence!
Fiorentina have just scored....my windows almost shatter with the crowd noise when the wind blows my way.....
This is a great story - the "official" explanation is even more bizarre than UFOs!
"On October 27, 1954, a reserve game between Fiorentina and nearby rivals Pistoiese was under way at the Stadio Artemio Franchi when a group of UFOs traveling at high speed abruptly stopped over the stadium. The stadium became silent as the crowd of around 10,000 spectators witnessed the event and described the UFOs as cigar shaped. It was suggested that the most likely explanation was that the silk of mass migrating spiders had agglomerated high in the atmosphere."
Where the heck did you get that story from? It is all of course very plausible...except for one key fact that makes a complete mockery of the truth....the crowd..for a reserve game, it is highly unlikely that there were 10,000 fans there....maybe 9,000
Mr. Sandpit, just a lingering after-effect of the Blair-Campbell years. A bit like when the Eastern Empire started getting into torture after Flavius Phocas instigated it.
Mr. Malmesbury, plays into Rotherham again. Don't investigate that sort of thing, it might rock the 'cultural sensitivities' boat.
I'm talking about the "small, decent" folk here - they feel that Rotherham is too horrible to talk about. But sadly, yes....
They aren't racists in any practical sense - they don't dislike other races, and probably mix with them far more than many of the elite I have encountered.... They have been introduced into a world where race is one of the factors that determines outcomes. So they want their own communitarian politicians to provide their community with goodies.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
I presume it's already been commented on, but another similarity between Trump and Corbyn is of course their open disdain, bordering on contempt, for the mainstream media. This, following an era in which careful cultivation of the press had been regarded as an essential part of a successful election campaign.
The pair of them would love to have favourable media reports.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
With just a couple of days to go, there's a massive difference in the probability distributions produced by the 538, Huffington Post, and New York Times 'Upshot', models:
Fiorentina have just scored....my windows almost shatter with the crowd noise when the wind blows my way.....
This is a great story - the "official" explanation is even more bizarre than UFOs!
"On October 27, 1954, a reserve game between Fiorentina and nearby rivals Pistoiese was under way at the Stadio Artemio Franchi when a group of UFOs traveling at high speed abruptly stopped over the stadium. The stadium became silent as the crowd of around 10,000 spectators witnessed the event and described the UFOs as cigar shaped. It was suggested that the most likely explanation was that the silk of mass migrating spiders had agglomerated high in the atmosphere."
Where the heck did you get that story from? It is all of course very plausible...except for one key fact that makes a complete mockery of the truth....the crowd..for a reserve game, it is highly unlikely that there were 10,000 fans there....maybe 9,000
When the Yanks were first testing the SR-71 (or perhaps it's predecessor the A-12) they were intrigued by black specks fused into the cockpit windows after flights. Analysis showed they were insects, but insects should not have been high enough in the atmosphere where the plane flew at speed.
The answer? They'd been thrown into the upper atmosphere by nuclear tests.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
It is on the Europe Elects website which is a pretty respected website so no reason to suspect it is not genuine. I would not be surprised at all to see Le Pen get up to 40% or higher over the course of the campaign, in the run-off she is generally over 30% in most polling
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
As OGH sometimes tells us, the way to make money betting is by backing value. Not necessarily what you think will happen or want to happen, just thing that the market values differently to you. And of course using sensible staking criteria, personally like most serious gamblers, I use a modified version of the Kelly criterion. I have selected a few bets that I consider value in the US presidential election: Five bets that win if Clinton does well: Clinton wins Electoral College by more than 124.5 votes: @3.25 Clinton wins Arizona @3.1 Clinton wins Iowa @3.95 Clinton wins New Hampshire @1.5 Clinton wins North Carolina @1.9 Three bets that win if Trump does well: Trump wins Alaska @1.23 Trump wins Nevada @4.0 Clinton wins 44-47% of vote @5.7 dutched with Clinton wins 41-44% of vote @ 10.5 And one bet against the clever Dicks: The next president will not lose the popular vote @1.15
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
It is on the Europe Elects website which is a pretty respected website so no reason to suspect it is not genuine. I would not be surprised at all to see Le Pen get up to 40% or higher over the course of the campaign, in the run-off she is generally over 30% in most polling
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of
It is on the Europe Elects website which is a pretty respected website so no reason to suspect it is not genuine. I would not be surprised at all to see Le Pen get up to 40% or higher over the course of the campaign, in the run-off she is generally over 30% in most polling
Depends which poll you are referring too but even on that poll Le Pen leads with the under 50s, is tied with Juppe with the under 65s and Juppe only leads with the over 65s
With just a couple of days to go, there's a massive difference in the probability distributions produced by the 538, Huffington Post, and New York Times 'Upshot', models:
I have to say...I think 538 is wrong. The problem with Nate's methodology is that his model seems to give weighting to states that have no importance...California/ New York and the like.
So, the indifference to Hillary in Democratic strong states is amplified in Trump's probability percentages.
I sent an hour or so looking at the up to date marginal state polls this afternoon...if you do that it is inconceivable to see any kind of Trump pathway....if you think he can get the industrial belt states, his chance of losing the likes of Florida is so much higher.
NYT is much closer to the polls than Nate/ maybe even Huff.
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Even if you added the Macron
That score for Hollande is just incredible. Makes corbyn look like Obama 2008 type popularity!
I don't believe it's a real poll: Kantar doesn't have it on its website (unlike the one from 10 days ago I referenced).
A poll from 2 weeks ago is bound to be on the website, a poll just published maybe not
£20 says its not a real poll. (i.e. self selecting web polls don't count.)
Deal?
It certainly looks like there has been another Kantar poll just published but as to whether that is the correct one I will wait to see, I am certainly not betting money on it
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan leading, but none (recently) where there was Juppe, but no Macron nor Bayrou. Which is what the election will be.
Even if you added the Macron
That score for Hollande is just incredible. Makes corbyn look like Obama 2008 type popularity!
I don't believe it's a real poll: Kantar doesn't have it on its website (unlike the one from 10 days ago I referenced).
A poll from 2 weeks ago is bound to be on the website, a poll just published maybe not
£20 says its not a real poll. (i.e. self selecting web polls don't count.)
Deal?
It certainly looks like there has been another Kantar poll just published but as to whether that is the correct one I will wait to see, I am certainly not betting money on it
As OGH sometimes tells us, the way to make money betting is by backing value. Not necessarily what you think will happen or want to happen, just thing that the market values differently to you. And of course using sensible staking criteria, personally like most serious gamblers, I use a modified version of the Kelly criterion. I have selected a few bets that I consider value in the US presidential election: Five bets that win if Clinton does well: Clinton wins Electoral College by more than 124.5 votes: @3.25 Clinton wins Arizona @3.1 Clinton wins Iowa @3.95 Clinton wins New Hampshire @1.5 Clinton wins North Carolina @1.9 Three bets that win if Trump does well: Trump wins Alaska @1.23 Trump wins Nevada @4.0 Clinton wins 44-47% of vote @5.7 dutched with Clinton wins 41-44% of vote @ 10.5 And one bet against the clever Dicks: The next president will not lose the popular vote @1.15
I've died and been consigned to some sort of hell. Bremoaners to one side and suddenly electable Corbin on the other. The horror the horror
I doubt McDonnell and Corbyn, even if they implemented the most left wing platform for two terms of government, could inflict the kind of economic chaos that Brexit ideologues have created in a matter of months......
Brexit ideologues are simply zenophobic thugs and mindless numbskull vandals of the lowest kind. Populist morons.
And there was me trying to be nice.........
Please don't be misled by the febrile nature of the postings on here. In my daily life, no-one has ever mentioned anything about the referendum since the immediate period after the result was known.
During that immediate post-referendum period, I met one person who was clearly shocked by the result and was reassuring himself that the outcome was only advisory. I met no-one who expressed anything other than a mild interest one way or the other.
I don't think it's raising the national mood to fever pitch, whatever the newspapers might be saying. At least, not out here in the sticks (Devon).
If the worst comes to worst we can always come to live in Devon, drink some tea, eat scones (with far too much clotted cream), watch the Archers, and Strictly. I'll be out later trying to stop the badger cull of course......
I don't think the Archers is on television. (Would have added a smiley but I believe you don't like them.)
As a kid, I believe I did spend most of each episode looking at the radio while listening. Is that watching the Archers?
Interesting observation. One does look at the point the voice/sound is coming from. Traditional distraction technique, I believe.
BTW, which part of Devon. Born in Plymouth, went to Plympton Grammar (now Hele's School) before setting off on my never-ending travels.
Teignbridge, Newton Abbot constituency.
I went as far as Newton Abbot last month, doing the rail line from Westbury through Exeter. Saw the sea wall at Dawlish
One more stop and I could have bought you a veggie-burger and a green health shake in Totnes!
Thanks for the offer - hoping to do Newton to Penzance at some stage
I have to say...I think 538 is wrong. The problem with Nate's methodology is that his model seems to give weighting to states that have no importance...California/ New York and the like.
So, the indifference to Hillary in Democratic strong states is amplified in Trump's probability percentages.
I sent an hour or so looking at the up to date marginal state polls this afternoon...if you do that it is inconceivable to see any kind of Trump pathway....if you think he can get the industrial belt states, his chance of losing the likes of Florida is so much higher.
NYT is much closer to the polls than Nate/ maybe even Huff.
Of course the polls could be wrong...
The 538 model does seem to be producing a probability distribution which looks too flat given that the election is a couple of days away. To put this in perspective, they make it an evens shot that Clinton will end up either with less than 250 ECVs or with more than 335. That's a hell of a spread-out prediction - they are basically saying they haven't got a clue.
HuffPost looks as though it makes the opposite mistake, too narrow a distribution. The NYT model looks a more sensible shape.
Of course, there is a separate issue of where the centre of the distribution should be.
I've died and been consigned to some sort of hell. Bremoaners to one side and suddenly electable Corbin on the other. The horror the horror
I doubt McDonnell and Corbyn, even if they implemented the most left wing platform for two terms of government, could inflict the kind of economic chaos that Brexit ideologues have created in a matter of months......
Brexit ideologues are simply zenophobic thugs and mindless numbskull vandals of the lowest kind. Populist morons.
And there was me trying to be nice.........
Please don't be misled by the febrile nature of the postings on here. In my daily life, no-one has ever mentioned anything about the referendum since the immediate period after the result was known.
During that immediate post-referendum period, I met one person who was clearly shocked by the result and was reassuring himself that the outcome was only advisory. I met no-one who expressed anything other than a mild interest one way or the other.
I don't think it's raising the national mood to fever pitch, whatever the newspapers might be saying. At least, not out here in the sticks (Devon).
If the worst comes to worst we can always come to live in Devon, drink some tea, eat scones (with far too much clotted cream), watch the Archers, and Strictly. I'll be out later trying to stop the badger cull of course......
I don't think the Archers is on television. (Would have added a smiley but I believe you don't like them.)
As a kid, I believe I did spend most of each episode looking at the radio while listening. Is that watching the Archers?
Interesting observation. One does look at the point the voice/sound is coming from. Traditional distraction technique, I believe.
BTW, which part of Devon. Born in Plymouth, went to Plympton Grammar (now Hele's School) before setting off on my never-ending travels.
Teignbridge, Newton Abbot constituency.
I went as far as Newton Abbot last month, doing the rail line from Westbury through Exeter. Saw the sea wall at Dawlish
One more stop and I could have bought you a veggie-burger and a green health shake in Totnes!
Thanks for the offer - hoping to do Newton to Penzance at some stage
Two weeks today, Juppe will top the first round of the LR primary, making the French election essentially over.
Complacency personified, this poll assumed Juppe was the LR candidate. Juppe is the epitome of the establishment, lacks charisma, has a shady past and Le Pen is running as a charismatic outsider with appeal to the white working and lower middle class while the media hates her, now what race does that remind you of? Juppe will be favourite but I think it will be a lot closer than you suggest
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Even if this afternoon's poll was a rogue plenty of other polls have had Le Pen leading round 1 even with Juppe as the LR candidate and every poll has shown her doing significantly better in round 2 against Juppe than her father did against Chirac in 2002
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan will be.
Even if you added the Macron
That score for Hollande is just incredible. Makes corbyn look like Obama 2008 type popularity!
I don't believe it's a real poll: /2017/
A poll from 2 weeks ago is bound to be on the website, a poll just published maybe not
£20 says its not a real poll. (i.e. self selecting web polls don't count.)
Deal?
It certainly looks like there has been another Kantar poll just published but as to whether that is the correct one I will wait to see, I am certainly not betting money on it
I'll give you 10-1
If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine
As OGH sometimes tells us, the way to make money betting is by backing value. Not necessarily what you think will happen or want to happen, just thing that the market values differently to you. And of course using sensible staking criteria, personally like most serious gamblers, I use a modified version of the Kelly criterion. I have selected a few bets that I consider value in the US presidential election: Five bets that win if Clinton does well: Clinton wins Electoral College by more than 124.5 votes: @3.25 Clinton wins Arizona @3.1 Clinton wins Iowa @3.95 Clinton wins New Hampshire @1.5 Clinton wins North Carolina @1.9 Three bets that win if Trump does well: Trump wins Alaska @1.23 Trump wins Nevada @4.0 Clinton wins 44-47% of vote @5.7 dutched with Clinton wins 41-44% of vote @ 10.5 And one bet against the clever Dicks: The next president will not lose the popular vote @1.15
An interesting series of bets from you GB - one I would add on the Trump side of the equation is the ECV Handicap for him +99.5 with Betfair. This afternoon I asked for and obtained odds of 1.90. This bet delivers providing The Donald wins no fewer than 220 votes, compared with 538.com's current forecast of him winning 246 ECVs. Should I lose this bet, that means Hillary wins >320 ECVs which leaves my Buy spread bet on her at an average of 307 looking in good shape. DYOR.
I have to say...I think 538 is wrong. The problem with Nate's methodology is that his model seems to give weighting to states that have no importance...California/ New York and the like.
So, the indifference to Hillary in Democratic strong states is amplified in Trump's probability percentages.
I sent an hour or so looking at the up to date marginal state polls this afternoon...if you do that it is inconceivable to see any kind of Trump pathway....if you think he can get the industrial belt states, his chance of losing the likes of Florida is so much higher.
NYT is much closer to the polls than Nate/ maybe even Huff.
Of course the polls could be wrong...
The 538 model does seem to be producing a probability distribution which looks too flat given that the election is a couple of days away. To put this in perspective, they make it an evens shot that Clinton will end up either with less than 250 ECVs or with more than 335. That's a hell of a spread-out prediction - they are basically saying they haven't got a clue.
HuffPost looks as though it makes the opposite mistake, too narrow a distribution. The NYT model looks a more sensible shape.
Of course, there is a separate issue of where the centre of the distribution should be.
That's a very coherent analysis you've made that explains the differentials
In view of Corbyn's volte face today and the noises coming from labour today I do not see labour obstructing A50
Good news for everyone if true - including for the future of the Labour Party. Will abandon the Liberal Democrats to charge headlong into a dead-end as the leaders of the Continuity Remain/Anti-Ukip movement (in England, anyway.) Avoids a massive clash with Leave-majority electorates in most of their heartland seats outside London.
Although, mind you, not everyone will be happy. Apologies to those who have read this, from Vernon Bogdanor in the Sunday Times today, but I'm just back from a day out and am catching up, and thought I would share:
The High Court confirmed that the EU referendum was, in law, advisory. The government has agreed to be bound by the result. But a sovereign parliament cannot be legally bound since the law knows nothing of the people. All the same, one would not expect MPs to go against the wishes of voters, even if some have suggested exactly that. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian argues that MPs should vote on their view of the national interest. Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, claims that the majority for Brexit was illegitimate since it was ill-informed and disfigured by racism.
The modern left finds itself curiously uncomfortable with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, as it echoes the arguments of 19th-century conservatives who opposed the extension of the franchise on similar grounds to those put forward by Flynn. Indeed, some on the left may be coming ruefully to sympathise with the French reactionary opponent of the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, who declared: “The principle of the sovereignty of the people is so dangerous that, even if it were true, it would be necessary to conceal it.”
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
Complacency? I have no skin in this game, I am just able to read polls.
Plenty of polls have shown Le Pan will be.
Even if you added the Macron
That score for Hollande is just incredible. Makes corbyn look like Obama 2008 type popularity!
I don't believe it's a real poll: /2017/
A poll from 2 weeks ago is bound to be on the website, a poll just published maybe not
£20 says its not a real poll. (i.e. self selecting web polls don't count.)
Deal?
If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning. Cancelled
In view of Corbyn's volte face today and the noises coming from labour today I do not see labour obstructing A50
Good news for everyone if true - including for the future of the Labour Party. Will abandon the Liberal Democrats to charge headlong into a dead-end as the leaders of the Continuity Remain/Anti-Ukip movement (in England, anyway.) Avoids a massive clash with Leave-majority electorates in most of their heartland seats outside London.
Although, mind you, not everyone will be happy. Apologies to those who have read this, from Vernon Bogdanor in the Sunday Times today, but I'm just back from a day out and am catching up, and thought I would share:
The High Court confirmed that the EU referendum was, in law, advisory. The government has agreed to be bound by the result. But a sovereign parliament cannot be legally bound since the law knows nothing of the people. All the same, one would not expect MPs to go against the wishes of voters, even if some have suggested exactly that. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian argues that MPs should vote on their view of the national interest. Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, claims that the majority for Brexit was illegitimate since it was ill-informed and disfigured by racism.
The modern left finds itself curiously uncomfortable with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, as it echoes the arguments of 19th-century conservatives who opposed the extension of the franchise on similar grounds to those put forward by Flynn. Indeed, some on the left may be coming ruefully to sympathise with the French reactionary opponent of the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, who declared: “The principle of the sovereignty of the people is so dangerous that, even if it were true, it would be necessary to conceal it.”
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
Another curiosity is that of the minority assuming they occupy the centre. The centre is where the public put it.
RCS 1000 : "If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine"
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning. DYOR.
RCS 1000 : "If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine"
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning.
It works either way (though for reasons I stated earlier I think it is Trump who is more likely to win the popular vote because of narrow defeats for him in the rustbelt and Midwest and narrow victories for Clinton in the West and Florida)
With just a couple of days to go, there's a massive difference in the probability distributions produced by the 538, Huffington Post, and New York Times 'Upshot', models:
I have to say...I think 538 is wrong. The problem with Nate's methodology is that his model seems to give weighting to states that have no importance...California/ New York and the like.
So, the indifference to Hillary in Democratic strong states is amplified in Trump's probability percentages.
I sent an hour or so looking at the up to date marginal state polls this afternoon...if you do that it is inconceivable to see any kind of Trump pathway....if you think he can get the industrial belt states, his chance of losing the likes of Florida is so much higher.
NYT is much closer to the polls than Nate/ maybe even Huff.
Of course the polls could be wrong...
I don't think 538 is weighting safe states. I think its relatively high probability of Trump winning is now simply coming from a high estimate of the probability that the polls are wrong. It seems they are looking at the historical accuracy of the polls, and assuming the probability of error this year is higher because there are more undecideds and minor party supporters.
I don't think this is much better than an educated guess, and it does seem too high, because what it implies, roughly speaking, is: Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Trump's support: 35% Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Clinton's support: 35% Probability the polls are about right: 30%
RCS 1000 : "If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine"
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning.
It works either way (though for reasons I stated earlier I think it is Trump who is more likely to win the popular vote because of narrow defeats for him in the rustbelt and Midwest and narrow victories for Clinton in the West and Florida)
Yes, but which are the mega states (Texas apart) in which he will win by a landslide - there's simply nowhere else on the scale of Hillary's CA, NY, etc.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
In view of Corbyn's volte face today and the noises coming from labour today I do not see labour obstructing A50
Good news for everyone if true - including for the future of the Labour Party. Will abandon the Liberal Democrats to charge headlong into a dead-end as the leaders of the Continuity Remain/Anti-Ukip movement (in England, anyway.) Avoids a massive clash with Leave-majority electorates in most of their heartland seats outside London.
Although, mind you, not everyone will be happy. Apologies to those who have read this, from Vernon Bogdanor in the Sunday Times today, but I'm just back from a day out and am catching up, and thought I would share:
The High Court confirmed that the EU referendum was, in law, advisory. The government has agreed to be bound by the result. But a sovereign parliament cannot be legally bound since the law knows nothing of the people. All the same, one would not expect MPs to go against the wishes of voters, even if some have suggested exactly that. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian argues that MPs should vote on their view of the national interest. Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, claims that the majority for Brexit was illegitimate since it was ill-informed and disfigured by racism.
The modern left finds itself curiously uncomfortable with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, as it echoes the arguments of 19th-century conservatives who opposed the extension of the franchise on similar grounds to those put forward by Flynn. Indeed, some on the left may be coming ruefully to sympathise with the French reactionary opponent of the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, who declared: “The principle of the sovereignty of the people is so dangerous that, even if it were true, it would be necessary to conceal it.”
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
Dont know whomhas the authority but Watson is right, Labour is too incompetent to block sink.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
RCS 1000 : "If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine"
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning.
It works either way (though for reasons I stated earlier I think it is Trump who is more likely to win the popular vote because of narrow defeats for him in the rustbelt and Midwest and narrow victories for Clinton in the West and Florida)
Yes, but which are the mega states (Texas apart) in which he will win by a landslide - there's simply nowhere else on the scale of Hillary's CA, NY, etc.
He probably won't win by ALL that much in Texas even, Hillary's California and New York victories will surely be by more.
Mr. NorthWales, did Miller have any explanation for her ridiculous rhetoric?
No - she just comes over as too full of her own importance. She is going to be very angry when the HOC overwhelmingly passes a simple authority to serve A50 in the early new year
I am pretty sure Miller's business SCM is hemorrhaging money. Their assets under management are believed to me embarrassingly low. So not quite sure what she has to be smug about.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
Whatever "chaos" is said to exist in the Conservative Govt, is a fraction of the chaos in the Labour party.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
Whatever "chaos" is said to exist in the Conservative Govt, is a fraction of the chaos in the Labour party.
At the moment. I would not bet on that remaining a stable situation in the medium- or long term.
I don't think this is much better than an educated guess, and it does seem too high, because what it implies, roughly speaking, is: Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Trump's support: 35% Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Clinton's support: 35% Probability the polls are about right: 30%
Chris.....I thought .the whole point of 538 was to produce a statistical model based on the weight of polling...of which in USA elections is huge. There are thousands of them.
It strikes me then Nate is having somewhat of a crisis of confidence in his use of polls to produce such high probabilities for Trump contrary to state polls.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
Yes that point was made also. And even Owen Smith accepted that an election tomorrow would be horrendous for Lab.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
Whatever "chaos" is said to exist in the Conservative Govt, is a fraction of the chaos in the Labour party.
And.....The Labour Party are not in Government and at best a millions miles away from it.
The Tories need to get a grip...they are in Government unlike Labour
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
I heard that Corbyn had backpedalled on the single market caveat earlier today, but it could also be the product of wider discussions with the PLP. The vast bulk of Labour MPs outside of London represent Leave-majority seats. Presumably wish to limit the potential for an electoral cataclysm.
Whatever "chaos" is said to exist in the Conservative Govt, is a fraction of the chaos in the Labour party.
The interesting thing is that small children in Torbay could identify what is wrong with Lab and how it could be fixed (Jezza, McD and Diane out).
What is wrong with the Cons post EURef is in a way more deep-seated.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
In view of Corbyn's volte face today and the noises coming from labour today I do not see labour obstructing A50
Good news for everyone if true - including for the future of the Labour Party. Will abandon the Liberal Democrats to charge headlong into a dead-end as the leaders of the Continuity Remain/Anti-Ukip movement (in England, anyway.) Avoids a massive clash with Leave-majority electorates in most of their heartland seats outside London.
Although, mind you, not everyone will be happy. Apologies to those who have read this, from Vernon Bogdanor in the Sunday Times today, but I'm just back from a day out and am catching up, and thought I would share:
The High Court confirmed that the EU referendum was, in law, advisory. The government has agreed to be bound by the result. But a sovereign parliament cannot be legally bound since the law knows nothing of the people. All the same, one would not expect MPs to go against the wishes of voters, even if some have suggested exactly that. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian argues that MPs should vote on their view of the national interest. Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, claims that the majority for Brexit was illegitimate since it was ill-informed and disfigured by racism.
The modern left finds itself curiously uncomfortable with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, as it echoes the arguments of 19th-century conservatives who opposed the extension of the franchise on similar grounds to those put forward by Flynn. Indeed, some on the left may be coming ruefully to sympathise with the French reactionary opponent of the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, who declared: “The principle of the sovereignty of the people is so dangerous that, even if it were true, it would be necessary to conceal it.”
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
He probably won't win by ALL that much in Texas even, Hillary's California and New York victories will surely be by more.
Yep, Clinton will have a lot of votes wasted in places like Texas, Ohio, Georgia, where she's going to be (relatively) close. Also quite possibly narrow losses in Florida and N Carolina. Meanwhile Trump will get absolutely nowhere in California and New York, and only end up with significant number of wasted votes on VA/PA.
I have 1/3 of Trump's total chances now coming as a result of a popular vote loss, but nicking it in the EC.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
I know....I never thought someone with my political leanings could be one of the few here championing liberal capitalism.
I fundamentally agree with the single market and free movement of labour...both are vital to our future prosperity......
I really do not give a monkeys about the EU Parliament, or who makes the laws. I couldn't care less. It seems to be very important to people here though...
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
I disagree. Brexit will dominate.
Well lets hope we don't don't find out who is correctly
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
No way. For years if not decades, every government will blame Brexit for anything that goes wrong in any policy sphere.
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
RCS 1000 : "If I bet, which is rare (I do have a small bet on the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral college for example on Tuesday) it is on things I have at least a reasonable amount of information on. Betting on the source of one poll I have no information on is not something I am going to bet on, even at odds of 10-1. It was on the Europe Elects website which is a reputable website so I assume it is correct, if they have got their source wrong that is their problem not mine"
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning.
It works either way (though for reasons I stated earlier I think it is Trump who is more likely to win the popular vote because of narrow defeats for him in the rustbelt and Midwest and narrow victories for Clinton in the West and Florida)
Yes, but which are the mega states (Texas apart) in which he will win by a landslide - there's simply nowhere else on the scale of Hillary's CA, NY, etc.
He will likely rack up huge margins of victory in states like West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee etc while cutting Hillary's margin compared to 2012 in NY and maybe CA and Illinois and most of the Upper Midwest and Pennsylvania without probably winning any of them
@Tyson It is the sort of thing that will only get picked up on here, rather than a "Nate fails again" narrative that he'd have if Trump were to win and his model had him at something like the PEC probability.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
I disagree. Brexit will dominate.
Well lets hope we don't don't find out who is correctly
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
No way. For years if not decades, every government will blame Brexit for anything that goes wrong in any policy sphere.
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
Oh I agree with that.
But the public will simply stop believing them. It wil not have any credibility.
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
No way. For years if not decades, every government will blame Brexit for anything that goes wrong in any policy sphere.
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
Oh I agree with that.
But the public will simply stop believing them. It wil not have any credibility.
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
..
Just to say JackW...you were spot on in 2012......so, no pressure on those cheeks......
'I've just been out to lunch and encountered some UK based publishers. They all said any serious publisher will be looking at moving their operations to the EU in light of Brexit.'
Strange that's what my other half & son ( both with major publishers) do and there has been zero talk about it.
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
..
Is it going to be map illustrated?
I shall be on tenterhooks along with the rest of the political world!
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
..
I tried to. The head butler reported that the under butler reported that the footman in question gave an opinion. Suggesting that he might be allowed a say in the governing of the country. So, sadly, he and his family had to be turned off the estate. Can't have the fellows at the club thinking one is getting all bigoted and anti-internationalist after all.
So the silver isn't polished as well as it might be.... Life is a trial sometimes. Oh well.
'I've just been out to lunch and encountered some UK based publishers. They all said any serious publisher will be looking at moving their operations to the EU in light of Brexit.'
Strange that's what my other half & son do and there has been zero talk about it.
What would be the advantage ?
None, they should more concerned that book publishing is doomed. The internet is putting them out of business, quickly.....memo to self find some publishers to short tomorrow.
12% of the population live in California and clinton has a 22% lead - thus 2.5% of the entire electorate is being wasted from Hillary's point of view.
6% of the population live in New York and Clinton has a 20% lead - thus 1.2% of the entire electorate is being wasted from Hillary's point of view.
Hence the reason why democrats bus voters between states the night before the election, so they can show they were domiciled in the more marginal state.This is not illegal.
Fortunately for Trump - Florida is surrounded by red states, so it stands or falls on its own merits.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
No way. For years if not decades, every government will blame Brexit for anything that goes wrong in any policy sphere.
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
Oh I agree with that.
But the public will simply stop believing them. It wil not have any credibility.
Crying wolf and all that.
Yep, after relentless decades of tabloid EU blaming, the public certainly stopped believing that it was responsible for every ill.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
I know....I never thought someone with my political leanings could be one of the few here championing liberal capitalism.
I fundamentally agree with the single market and free movement of labour...both are vital to our future prosperity......
I really do not give a monkeys about the EU Parliament, or who makes the laws. I couldn't care less. It seems to be very important to people here though...
Your definition of liberal capitalism seems to be a form of blackmail where in order to trade you must accept that anyone from anywhere can move into your neighbourhood.
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
..
Hillary herself has instructed her maid to print it out so she can peruse it in the comfort of her bed.
As an aside I thought it was telling by Watson on Pienaar that quite obviously he and Jezza hadn't discussed Jezza's no single market no A50 Mirror article.
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
One of the most fascinating outcomes of the EU referendum is the way it has almost broken the time-honoured political division of left & right.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
*If* it all goes belly-up (and I hope it does not), then the Lib Dems can claim to have been right on two of the biggest issues facing the UK since they were formed: the Iraq War and Brexit.
If.
I think the problem with that if, is that it would be very hard to prove any catastrophe was actually down to Brexit. They have already damaged their credibility on that score. Immediate recession Year long recession Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
No way. For years if not decades, every government will blame Brexit for anything that goes wrong in any policy sphere.
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
Oh I agree with that.
But the public will simply stop believing them. It wil not have any credibility.
Crying wolf and all that.
Yep, after relentless decades of tabloid EU blaming, the public certainly stopped believing that it was to responsible for every ill.
Comments
"Er - by your side too."
"That just reinforces my point!"
One unfortunate parallel between the UK and US politics is the increasing divisiveness of the rhetoric, and demonisation of opponents. It's making watching and reading about politics (including on here sometimes) increasingly frustrating with its childishness.
Where Corbyn and Trump probably agree is that they want to control the media.
In terms of buying money, I'm actually wondering what the odds will be on the Sleaford byelection.
They aren't racists in any practical sense - they don't dislike other races, and probably mix with them far more than many of the elite I have encountered.... They have been introduced into a world where race is one of the factors that determines outcomes. So they want their own communitarian politicians to provide their community with goodies.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/795233658819006464
None of the other polls have picked up any movement whatsoever since the FN (as I predicted) failed in the local and regional elections last year.
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 25.60% 0.24% 8.76% 250-259 5.06% 0.37% 2.99% 260-269 5.67% 0.97% 3.78% 270-279 6.43% 2.77% 5.13% 280-289 6.29% 2.02% 4.83% 290-299 5.55% 4.27% 6.16% 300-309 6.10% 7.34% 7.18% 310-319 6.07% 11.90% 7.66% 320-329 5.20% 12.91% 10.38% 330-339 4.61% 12.98% 6.67% 340-349 5.70% 21.15% 11.49% 350-359 4.55% 13.63% 7.34% 360-369 3.95% 4.77% 5.42% 370-379 2.97% 2.22% 3.80% 380-389 1.84% 0.91% 2.59% 390-399 0.94% 0.88% 1.60% 400 or over 3.47% 0.66% 4.23% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 63.67% 98.42% 84.47% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 290.3 331.5 318.7 Clinton 270-up 36.8 61.6 53.7 Clinton 300-up 20.7 33.3 30.7 Clinton 330-up 9.8 10.9 13.8 Trump 270-up 16.1 0.1 4.9 Trump 300-up 7.8 0.0 1.8 Trump 330-up 3.1 0.0 0.6The answer? They'd been thrown into the upper atmosphere by nuclear tests.
(Source: the excellent Skunkworks by Ben Rich)
Is that pattern repeated in the US without Obama to vote for?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/black-turnout-falls-in-early-voting-boding-ill-for-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
See: http://fr.kantar.com/elections/presidentielle/2017/
I have selected a few bets that I consider value in the US presidential election:
Five bets that win if Clinton does well:
Clinton wins Electoral College by more than 124.5 votes: @3.25
Clinton wins Arizona @3.1
Clinton wins Iowa @3.95
Clinton wins New Hampshire @1.5
Clinton wins North Carolina @1.9
Three bets that win if Trump does well:
Trump wins Alaska @1.23
Trump wins Nevada @4.0
Clinton wins 44-47% of vote @5.7 dutched with Clinton wins 41-44% of vote @ 10.5
And one bet against the clever Dicks:
The next president will not lose the popular vote @1.15
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/795235433533816832
It is not possible both are correct
Deal?
So, the indifference to Hillary in Democratic strong states is amplified in Trump's probability percentages.
I sent an hour or so looking at the up to date marginal state polls this afternoon...if you do that it is inconceivable to see any kind of Trump pathway....if you think he can get the industrial belt states, his chance of losing the likes of Florida is so much higher.
NYT is much closer to the polls than Nate/ maybe even Huff.
Of course the polls could be wrong...
HuffPost looks as though it makes the opposite mistake, too narrow a distribution. The NYT model looks a more sensible shape.
Of course, there is a separate issue of where the centre of the distribution should be.
Will this be made up on election day?
DYOR.
I may add more tomorrow if Paddy Power do not cut their odds.
Although, mind you, not everyone will be happy. Apologies to those who have read this, from Vernon Bogdanor in the Sunday Times today, but I'm just back from a day out and am catching up, and thought I would share:
The High Court confirmed that the EU referendum was, in law, advisory. The government has agreed to be bound by the result. But a sovereign parliament cannot be legally bound since the law knows nothing of the people. All the same, one would not expect MPs to go against the wishes of voters, even if some have suggested exactly that. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian argues that MPs should vote on their view of the national interest. Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, claims that the majority for Brexit was illegitimate since it was ill-informed and disfigured by racism.
The modern left finds itself curiously uncomfortable with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, as it echoes the arguments of 19th-century conservatives who opposed the extension of the franchise on similar grounds to those put forward by Flynn. Indeed, some on the left may be coming ruefully to sympathise with the French reactionary opponent of the French Revolution, Joseph de Maistre, who declared: “The principle of the sovereignty of the people is so dangerous that, even if it were true, it would be necessary to conceal it.”
http://linkis.com/www.thetimes.co.uk/a/bbBHO
Bogdanor nails it. In this particular respect, figures such as Clegg, Farron, Toynbee, Flynn and Lammy are acting *exactly* like reactionary, early 19th century Tory toffs. Elitist figures barely cognisant of the notion of democracy, for whom public policy should consist entirely of that which they find acceptable, regardless of anything so irrelevant as the opinion of the plebs.
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/795332888166301697
What a state Lab is in. Plus who has the authority? Media is reporting Lab won't obstruct A50 evidently taking Watson's as the authoritative version.
Presumably your favouring the "win the popular vote but lose the POTUS election" bet is based on all the millions of needless millions of votes Hillary will win in California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and New England, compared with any number of narrow wins the Donald would need to achieve for him to win the Presidency. This looks like value to me also, compared with the considerably shorter odds available on him simply winning.
DYOR.
I don't think this is much better than an educated guess, and it does seem too high, because what it implies, roughly speaking, is:
Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Trump's support: 35%
Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Clinton's support: 35%
Probability the polls are about right: 30%
Surely that 30% is too low.
Indeed, if things do go very badly wrong economically for Brexit, then it is almost credible that the Lib Dems, as apparently the only Remain/Rejoin flag-bearers still standing, could pick up massive numbers of votes if the electorate really do change their minds under economic hardship.
If.
I don't think this is much better than an educated guess, and it does seem too high, because what it implies, roughly speaking, is:
Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Trump's support: 35%
Probability the polls are seriously underestimating Clinton's support: 35%
Probability the polls are about right: 30%
Surely that 30% is too low.
@Chris
Chris.....I thought .the whole point of 538 was to produce a statistical model based on the weight of polling...of which in USA elections is huge. There are thousands of them.
It strikes me then Nate is having somewhat of a crisis of confidence in his use of polls to produce such high probabilities for Trump contrary to state polls.
- Clinton leads in 17
- Trump leads in 2
- One tied
If polls are anywhere near right then surely Clinton must win pretty comfortably.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#now
The Tories need to get a grip...they are in Government unlike Labour
What is wrong with the Cons post EURef is in a way more deep-seated.
They have already damaged their credibility on that score.
Immediate recession
Year long recession
Etc etc.
And the longer you get from June 23rd the harder it will be to link catastrophe with Brexit, especialy as there will be a hundred other things going on that can be blamed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFuZax5fKg
I have 1/3 of Trump's total chances now coming as a result of a popular vote loss, but nicking it in the EC.
I fundamentally agree with the single market and free movement of labour...both are vital to our future prosperity......
I really do not give a monkeys about the EU Parliament, or who makes the laws. I couldn't care less. It seems to be very important to people here though...
Far from making UK politicians accountable to themselves, Brexit is, rather, the ultimate get out of jail card.
(Sorry!)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
But the public will simply stop believing them. It wil not have any credibility.
Crying wolf and all that.
I hope PBers have advised their butler to instruct the footman to polish the silver cutlery ahead my little ARSE4US announcement at 9:00am tomorrow morning ....
(trying to avoid "indeed")
https://twitter.com/electionsmith/status/795106645558837248
Clinton 46 .. Trump 41
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/215858932-story
'I've just been out to lunch and encountered some UK based publishers. They all said any serious publisher will be looking at moving their operations to the EU in light of Brexit.'
Strange that's what my other half & son ( both with major publishers) do and there has been zero talk about it.
What would be the advantage ?
And 08 ....
I shall be on tenterhooks along with the rest of the political world!
So the silver isn't polished as well as it might be.... Life is a trial sometimes. Oh well.
6% of the population live in New York and Clinton has a 20% lead - thus 1.2% of the entire electorate is being wasted from Hillary's point of view.
Hence the reason why democrats bus voters between states the night before the election, so they can show they were domiciled in the more marginal state.This is not illegal.
Fortunately for Trump - Florida is surrounded by red states, so it stands or falls on its own merits.
I can't recall what your ARSE was up to in 2005....but it has always been most lucrative....