#VoteHillary @ladygaga 4h4 hours ago Young people listen up. We need to mobilize now, #VoteHillary and stop this dangerous man from continuing to divide and wreck our democracy.
Whilst I understand wanting to stop Trump, Trump is only a candidate because America is already divided. It's not like everything was just fine and then along came Donald Trump to screw it up.
American has been divided from its founding. It was split between those who thought blacks were people and those who thought they were property. It has never reconciled those two factions.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
But isn't NV special, in the sense of large latino vote? May apply to FL, but surely not NC?
NV is special in terms of the early voting data, I think. A particularly large percentage of voters have turned out earlier and Democrats are ahead by a statistically significant margin. That's why we can be MORE confident of the early returns data in Nevada than we normally can be. NickPalmer lists the reasons for suspecting early returns data below.
In Florida the early returns are tied Rep/Dem. You can't make any predictions from it, except it will probably be close.
Cheers Pulps,,,,and Peter up thread for the RodCrosby link.
He's a very clever man Rod........ I am a sucker for clever people.....I can forgive them pretty much anything, even a spot of holocaust denial. It's stupid people that I struggle with...
Its curious that most of the early voting info leaking out seems to be relating directly or indirectly to Clinton's vote and being released by the Clinton Campaign?
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
Even in Nevada Hispanics make up only 20% of the population, let alone voters. High Hispanic turnout is good for Hillary but the white working class still make up close to 40% of America
I don't mean he would have lost because Hispanics/Latinos all over the USA would be rising up against him. I mean that if these predictions based on early voting in Nevada are accurate, and if something similar is happening in Florida and North Carolina, even on a somewhat smaller scale, then Trump's position becomes untenable. Because Clinton has a kind of Southern Hispanic Wall (oh, the irony!) to replace the northern one that has been looking so crumbly.
Thousands of emails reviewed in less than a week. Hmm. A minor boost for Clinton but I doubt it makes virtually any difference, it was still yet another example of her failing to follow proper security procedures and if you disapproved of her email classification measures enough to determine your vote on it, which was probably a small minority anyway, I doubt this changes anything
The only way it would have made a material difference to the outcome of the election was if she had been arrested, which was not going to happen this week.
It may however encourage GOP voters who were going to abstain rather than vote for Trump to turn out to ensure she faces a hostile Congress, simply because it has given them a brutal reminder of just how incompetent and untrustworthy she is. The old check and balance system may seem suddenly desirable.
Yes, this 'clearing' of Clinton will enrage the GOP base, they will certainly all be at the polls on Tuesday
I see, it's a good think she's been cleared because it will enrage the GOP base.
Let me get this right then, somebody who wouldn't have bothered to vote against her when the FBI announced the investigation was being reopened will now go out and vote because she's been cleared.
The handful of Trump rampers on here are living in fantasy land.
Of course not in most cases but it will add fuel to the fire of the 'conspiracy' theorists and make the base even more determined to vote, while the fact the FBI has not found anything 'criminal' does not excuse the fact sensitive emails were found on Weiner's server
We don't know tbe content of the emails, indeed they may well be cat videos...
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins. 2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out? 3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting? 4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment? 5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again? 6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota? 7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania? 8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania? 9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise? 10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works? 11. Will any EC voters go rogue? 12. If so, how? 13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result? 14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty. 16. You're not really counting this far are you? 19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year? 20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
19 A:
Reversion to the mean! 2 years ago we would have been happy to be mid table :-)
We are enjoying the Champions League and likely to win the group, but the European malarky is overrated. WBA won ugly, in that classic Pulis style.
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins. 2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out? 3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting? 4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment? 5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again? 6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota? 7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania? 8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania? 9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise? 10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works? 11. Will any EC voters go rogue? 12. If so, how? 13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result? 14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty. 16. You're not really counting this far are you? 19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year? 20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
19 A:
Reversion to the mean! 2 years ago we would have been happy to be mid table :-)
We are enjoying the Champions League and likely to win the group, but the European malarky is overrated. WBA won ugly, in that classic Pulis style.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
I heard a rumour Hungary is already using the Forint! I guess you win the bet.
Unfair use of truth there.
I know, it's all an anti-UKIP elitist conspiracy, its so unfair but din't worry they will just ignore it cos you are an establishment "expert"
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Trump's final schedule tomorrow sees him in 5 states, he starts in Florida, then heads to North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Michigan https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins. 2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out? 3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting? 4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment? 5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again? 6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota? 7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania? 8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania? 9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise? 10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works? 11. Will any EC voters go rogue? 12. If so, how? 13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result? 14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty. 16. You're not really counting this far are you? 19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year? 20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
19 A:
Reversion to the mean! 2 years ago we would have been happy to be mid table :-)
We are enjoying the Champions League and likely to win the group, but the European malarky is overrated. WBA won ugly, in that classic Pulis style.
The group is incredibly weak however - as if Ranieri hand picked it! It is amazing how the departure of Kante has hollowed out the team. Vardy got the headlines, but the team really needs Kante to function properly.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
AndyJS's spreadsheet hopefully on election night....well he can fix it for me to pay for my New York fund at least.....
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
But lesser evil is, by definition, better than greater evil.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Pulps
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
Not only are those two states the first to start declaring partial results, they're likely to swing towards Trump compared to 2012 regardless of what happens nationally. Some of those betting are bound to be mislead by that.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
She also is quite unlikely to be the lesser evil in four years' time. If she's unpopular now, just think what four years will do to her (even given the potential for the GOP to shoot themselves in the foot after the midterms).
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
No idea, my expectation is that things will keep getting worse.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Ignore his commentary, pay attention to his numbers.
Thousands of emails reviewed in less than a week. Hmm. A minor boost for Clinton but I doubt it makes virtually any difference, it was still yet another example of her failing to follow proper security procedures and if you disapproved of her email classification measures enough to determine your vote on it, which was probably a small minority anyway, I doubt this changes anything
The only way it would have made a material difference to the outcome of the election was if she had been arrested, which was not going to happen this week.
It may however encourage GOP voters who were going to abstain rather than vote for Trump to turn out to ensure she faces a hostile Congress, simply because it has given them a brutal reminder of just how incompetent and untrustworthy she is. The old check and balance system may seem suddenly desirable.
Yes, this 'clearing' of Clinton will enrage the GOP base, they will certainly all be at the polls on Tuesday
I see, it's a good think she's been cleared because it will enrage the GOP base.
Let me get this right then, somebody who wouldn't have bothered to vote against her when the FBI announced the investigation was being reopened will now go out and vote because she's been cleared.
The handful of Trump rampers on here are living in fantasy land.
Of course not in most cases but it will add fuel to the fire of the 'conspiracy' theorists and make the base even more determined to vote, while the fact the FBI has not found anything 'criminal' does not excuse the fact sensitive emails were found on Weiner's server
We don't know tbe content of the emails, indeed they may well be cat videos...
Well, I am sure they contained plenty of video of p##sies....but perhaps of a slightly different type.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Pulps
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
Not only are those two states the first to start declaring partial results, they're likely to swing towards Trump compared to 2012 regardless of what happens nationally.
You will be here on Tuesday... it would be very nice to see you....and maybe a little few nuggets would be helpful....no pressure or anything....
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
No idea, my expectation is that things will keep getting worse.
My prediction is that some of the things will get worse, but others of the things will get better.
1. Are the polls systemically weighting correctly? If so, Hillary wins. 2. Will Trump's former non-voters turn out? 3. Has Hillary bagged enough already in early voting? 4. How good a guide to the results are the early voting breakdowns by party alignment? 5. Will Obama's then-new voters from 2008 and 2012 turn out again? 6. What was Trump doing in Minnesota? 7. Can Trump flip states far enough out of place to make up for missing Pennsylvania? 8. Will Trump miss Pennsylvania? 9. Can Hillary pull off a surprise? 10. Utah. What's going on there and how big a spanner can it throw in the works? 11. Will any EC voters go rogue? 12. If so, how? 13. How close does Trump have to get before he doesn't accept the result? 14. OK, I should have gone for a smaller number than twenty. 16. You're not really counting this far are you? 19. Leicester - what's happened to them this year? 20. Will there be another Black Swan before Tuesday night?
19 A:
Reversion to the mean! 2 years ago we would have been happy to be mid table :-)
We are enjoying the Champions League and likely to win the group, but the European malarky is overrated. WBA won ugly, in that classic Pulis style.
The group is incredibly weak however - as if Ranieri hand picked it! It is amazing how the departure of Kante has hollowed out the team. Vardy got the headlines, but the team really needs Kante to function properly.
Kante is why Chelsea will win the League. He is the best ball winner in the world. It was a pleasure to watch last season. Non-posession football needs a Kante to get the ballback.
The problem today was the goalie. Zieler doesn't communicate well with the back four.
Still having fun though I don't think that I have seen Leicesters last relegation.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Pulps
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
Not only are those two states the first to start declaring partial results, they're likely to swing towards Trump compared to 2012 regardless of what happens nationally.
You will be here on Tuesday... it would be very nice to see you....and maybe a little few nuggets would be helpful....no pressure or anything....
Thanks, although of course there is pressure on me if I get it wrong and people lose money!
One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the Hispanic vote is there is a big difference between English-speaking Hispanics and those who speak Spanish primarily - the figures I have seen for the former suggest only something like a 5-6 pt advantage for the Democrats while the latter has a huge advantage (something like 85-10). It is why you get some oddities with the polling around the Hispanic share going to Republicans: those who speak Spanish primarily tend to be poorer and so tend to have fewer landlines / broadband penetration so they get missed in a number of polls, which drives a big discrepancy between different polls.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Ignore his commentary, pay attention to his numbers.
Rod was generally great when talking about the future and terrible when talking about the past...
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Pulps
Trump is going to drift out...I spent an hour going through the polls and he should be more like 9/1.....Andy JS he's the man...Kentucky and Indiana on election night.. first to call and big Trump wins....and then bam...
Not only are those two states the first to start declaring partial results, they're likely to swing towards Trump compared to 2012 regardless of what happens nationally.
You will be here on Tuesday... it would be very nice to see you....and maybe a little few nuggets would be helpful....no pressure or anything....
Thanks, although of course there is pressure on me if I get it wrong and people lose money!
No Andy....we are all adults here (well most of us....I'm actually a ten year old child prodigy from Ormskirk masquerading as an expat)........Peter from Putney always puts the DYOR proviso which is relevant to everything that is ever posted here from anyone.
I would love to see your spreadsheet though....out of curiosity (lie). And anyhow, I would never admit to losing money on the basis of taking a tip from pbCOM.....so all good....
Not great news for Hillary, they didn't want this vague story that the voters don't understand back in the news for the last two days, especially if the media decide to balance their report on this thing being bullshit by talking about the next bullshit scandal that hasn't yet been fully investigated and proven to be bullshit.
I am with you on this, Edmund: the general rule in this election has being that, whenever the focus and news has been on one candidate, the other side had benefited. What Comey's letter now means is that this evening and tomorrow will be dominated by reaction to the letter with Republicans questioning whether Comey was learnt upon by the DoJ to put this statement out - everything else will be crowded out.
FWIW, I did sense that the election was perhaps heading back HRC's way after the events pof last week but I think Comey might have just chucked a whole load of gasoline onto the fire.
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Ignore his commentary, pay attention to his numbers.
Rod was generally great when talking about the future and terrible when talking about the past...
Very clever...... I would be tempted to put a cartoon character clapping, but I won't
But. I have to say, Rod was really compassionate with me when my mum died recently....and I remember that....
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
They can but the GOP want to reduce early voting as it generally benefits the Democrats.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
Praying for a knight on a white charger is part of the problem.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
But isn't NV special, in the sense of large latino vote? May apply to FL, but surely not NC?
Wikpedia says 20% for Nevada and Florida, and 9% for North Carolina.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
Praying for a knight on a white charger is part of the problem.
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
They can but the GOP want to reduce early voting as it generally benefits the Democrats.
But this isn't new or restricted to only certain places, it happens in every election across the country and it seems like pretty much everybody has to endure this nonsense.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
My prediction is that some of the things will get worse, but others of the things will get better.
I don't see Clinton tackling things like campaign finance, political advertising, lobbying, or the behaviour of the media. I don't think social media will improve. I don't think gerrymandering will end. The contentious social issues will persist. It don't see any foreign policy breakthroughs. Supreme Court nominations will be a bunfight. Income inequality will continue to grow. Trade issues will become ever more troubling. Special interests will be paid off.
Some things will get better in America, but they will be mostly despite the actions of the government rather than because of it.
Politics in America will remain dysfunctional and vulgar, and even if 2020 doesn't quite match the depths of 2016 I think the long term trend is for it to get worse.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surprise me...but if he had pivoted I think it could have been even closer, as Clinton has been crap and never addresses the concerns of the "working man" that were heard loud and clear in the primary season.
Its curious that most of the early voting info leaking out seems to be relating directly or indirectly to Clinton's vote and being released by the Clinton Campaign?
Is that surprising considering Trump doesn't have anything close to a campaign.
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
But isn't NV special, in the sense of large latino vote? May apply to FL, but surely not NC?
NV is special in terms of the early voting data, I think. A particularly large percentage of voters have turned out earlier and Democrats are ahead by a statistically significant margin. That's why we can be MORE confident of the early returns data in Nevada than we normally can be. NickPalmer lists the reasons for suspecting early returns data below.
In Florida the early returns are tied Rep/Dem. You can't make any predictions from it, except it will probably be close.
I think what I'm trying to make sense of is why there would be this rather large error in the polls for Nevada, and whether there is likely to be a similar (albeit perhaps smaller) error in the polls for other states with large Hispanic/Latino populations.
'The Daily Telegraph can also disclose that Leave.EU is planning to “crowd fund” £100,000 from its supporters to pay for barristers to represent Leave supporters in the court action. This will mean that the anti-EU supporters will have their own barristers in the legal action, who can challenge claims made by Remain supporters and even the Government. Mr Farage - the interim leader of the UK Independence Party - and other prominent Leave supporters are due to lead the march from Trafalgar Square along Whitehall to Parliament Square.'
One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the Hispanic vote is there is a big difference between English-speaking Hispanics and those who speak Spanish primarily - the figures I have seen for the former suggest only something like a 5-6 pt advantage for the Democrats while the latter has a huge advantage (something like 85-10). It is why you get some oddities with the polling around the Hispanic share going to Republicans: those who speak Spanish primarily tend to be poorer and so tend to have fewer landlines / broadband penetration so they get missed in a number of polls, which drives a big discrepancy between different polls.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
I knew what you mean. I grew up in northern New Jersey, where you had a huge cross-section of immigrants and first-generation Americans from all over Central and South American. Hispanics in America are far from being one monolithic body.
Still, according to the latest government figures, 64% of them in 2013 were of Mexican descent. Another 9.5% came from or their family came from Puerto Rico. That isn't promising for Trump.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
It's the debates that did it for me with Trump. I listened to them on the radio....I found the second one traumatic in a harrowing way. He was diabolical....I found it quite upsetting.
I normally thoroughly enjoy politics, polls and all that....but that second debate. It sickened me and made me worried about the USA, and by implication ourselves.
I really hope GOP will get it's act together in the future and find a candidate that is remotely normal......Trump has taken the fun out of politics for me..
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler idolatry is reprehensible (some of what he posted was only comprehensible when you realised he was quoting Hitler), but his maths work is good: famously, he was the only one on here who predicted a 2015 CON majority and he kept faith with Lebo and Norpoth's model longer that they did. I think Rod's predictions are not dependent on his political views.
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
It's the debates that did it for me with Trump. I listened to them on the radio....I found the second one traumatic in a harrowing way. He was diabolical....I found it quite upsetting.
I normally thoroughly enjoy politics, polls and all that....but that second debate. It sickened me and made me worried about the USA, and by implication ourselves.
I really hope GOP will get it's act together in the future and find a candidate that is remotely normal......Trump has taken the fun out of politics for me..
I genuinely think he has some sort of condition...for 5 minutes he would be reasonably on point (I don't mean I agree with what he was saying, but it was vaguely coherent), and then well it was disturbing rantings and ramblings of a mad man.
One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the Hispanic vote is there is a big difference between English-speaking Hispanics and those who speak Spanish primarily - the figures I have seen for the former suggest only something like a 5-6 pt advantage for the Democrats while the latter has a huge advantage (something like 85-10). It is why you get some oddities with the polling around the Hispanic share going to Republicans: those who speak Spanish primarily tend to be poorer and so tend to have fewer landlines / broadband penetration so they get missed in a number of polls, which drives a big discrepancy between different polls.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
You are not a betting man normally ? It may have escaped your noticed but this is a betting site.
Now it is a difficult bet. Because there still may be two countries in twenty years time that still call themselves the EU. For instance East Prussia and slovenia. I am happy to bet but how do we define it.
What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members in five years time?* Quite big I'd imagine?
*Minus the UK of course.
So iam thinking Italy and Spain will leave the euro within two to three years. Hungary three to five. Trouble is they will still call themselves the EU. I will bet three or more will leave the Euro zone within three years.
Here's a trade for you. Every year Spain remains in the Euro, you pay me £100, and when Spain leaves, I'll pay you £500.
One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the Hispanic vote is there is a big difference between English-speaking Hispanics and those who speak Spanish primarily - the figures I have seen for the former suggest only something like a 5-6 pt advantage for the Democrats while the latter has a huge advantage (something like 85-10). It is why you get some oddities with the polling around the Hispanic share going to Republicans: those who speak Spanish primarily tend to be poorer and so tend to have fewer landlines / broadband penetration so they get missed in a number of polls, which drives a big discrepancy between different polls.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
I knew what you mean. I grew up in northern New Jersey, where you had a huge cross-section of immigrants and first-generation Americans from all over Central and South American. Hispanics in America are far from being one monolithic body.
Still, according to the latest government figures, 64% of them in 2013 were of Mexican descent. Another 9.5% came from or their family came from Puerto Rico. That isn't promising for Trump.
True, but a lot of that Mexican percentage is in California, so it does not help HRC.
On a more general point, take out Nevada and a lot of the early voting numbers do not actually look that great for HRC - in North Carolina, the Republicans are up mid-teens in early votes from 2012 while the Democrats are flat and the AA vote is down; in Florida, it looks as though the Democrat lead is less than Obama had when he won; in Ohio, the AA vote is down. Not sure exactly - looking at the data - why there is the assumption she has it in the bag.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler .
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surpriseseason.
If Trump did a centrist pivot, an 'etch a sketch' a la Mitt Romney if you like, he would no longer be Trump. The fact is the GOP have run two centrists for the last two elections, McCain and Romney and they have both lost and at the moment, despite trailing, Trump is going to do better than McCain according to every poll and maybe better than Romney too according to at least half the polls. The only way the GOP would pick a centrist again in 2020 is if Trump lost by a landslide, that is not going to happen, so put your money on Cruz for 2020 with Pence a fair outside bet too. The GOP are probably going to have to wait until 2024 to have a chance at the White House in the event of a Trump loss, perhaps in a George P Bush v Tim Kaine race (Bush is Jeb's half-Hispanic son)
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
They can but the GOP want to reduce early voting as it generally benefits the Democrats.
I've just backed Clinton£100 @ 1.47 New Hampshire; Trump £20 @ 6.2 POTUS.
New Hampshire is THE swing state in both @RodCrosby and Nate Silver's analysis.
Does this still hold if the Dems have already won Nevada?
No. I think Nate Silver is slightly cautious in putting Nevada into the Trump camp on current information, given encouraging data for Clinton on early polling in Nevada. He would say he only deals with polls and not early voting, except to the extent they show up in polls. It is easier for Clinton to win Florida or North Carolina than for Trump to win Pennsylvania or Nevada AND New Hampshire OR Colorado*, either of which would win him the election. Put together this makes a Clinton win the most likely, but it is certainly within reach for Trump.
*(edited to include NH in Trump's pathway)
The thing is, if the early voting indications in Nevada are taken at face value, there will be a Clinton lead there of something like 6% rather than the tiny Trump lead shown by 538.
If the polling averages for Florida and North Carolina were adjusted by even half that amount, Clinton would win those states comfortably. She would even come close in Georgia.Nate Silver has talked in general terms about the possibility of there being a polling error that's peculiar to Nevada, but isn't this quite crucial? If there is an error of that size in Nevada, and if there's anything like a comparable error in Florida and North Carolina, then Trump has lost, hasn't he?
But isn't NV special, in the sense of large latino vote? May apply to FL, but surely not NC?
NV is special in terms of the early voting data, I think. A particularly large percentage of voters have turned out earlier and Democrats are ahead by a statistically significant margin. That's why we can be MORE confident of the early returns data in Nevada than we normally can be. NickPalmer lists the reasons for suspecting early returns data below.
In Florida the early returns are tied Rep/Dem. You can't make any predictions from it, except it will probably be close.
I think what I'm trying to make sense of is why there would be this rather large error in the polls for Nevada, and whether there is likely to be a similar (albeit perhaps smaller) error in the polls for other states with large Hispanic/Latino populations.
See my point from earlier, Chris - the fact that many Hispanics in Nevada do not speak English as their primary language is likely to be skewing the polling data as some polllng organisations do not reach them.
Personally, while I am long Trump, it is pretty clear HRC will win the state.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler .
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surpriseseason.
If Trump did a centrist pivot, an 'etch a sketch' a la Mitt Romney if you like, he would no longer be Trump. The fact is the GOP have run two centrists for the last two elections, McCain and Romney and they have both lost and at the moment, despite trailing, Trump is going to do better than McCain according to every poll and maybe better than Romney too according to at least half the polls. The only way the GOP would pick a centrist again in 2020 is if Trump lost by a landslide, that is not going to happen, so put your money on Cruz for 2020 with Pence a fair outside bet too. The GOP are probably going to have to wait until 2024 to have a chance at the White House in the event of a Trump loss, perhaps in a George P Bush v Tim Kaine race (Bush is Jeb's half-Hispanic son)
I didn't say centrist pivot, I said a Sanders inspired pivot....big difference e.g. Romney would never propose all the big protectionist stuff.
I am not saying such an approach is good for America, just putting out there what I think a lot of people thought Trump would do to delineate himself from Clinton.
I think the only sensible action for an American voter is to vote for the candidate with the best running mate.
Then work tirelessly to have the winning candidate impeached, which shouldn't be too hard. With luck you can get the winner to stand aside before inauguration in January.
ROFL. Well the Jesuits did elbow Joseph Ratzinger out (there wasn't an impeachment procedure) and put their own man Jorge Bergoglio in his place. So is that the plan for the White House too?
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler .
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surpriseseason.
If Trump did a centrist pivot, an 'etch a sketch' a la Mitt Romney if you like, he would no longer be Trump. The fact is the GOP have run two centrists for the last two elections, McCain and Romney and they have both lost and at the moment, despite trailing, Trump is going to do better than McCain according to every poll and maybe better than Romney too according to at least half the polls. The only way the GOP would pick a centrist again in 2020 is if Trump lost by a landslide, that is not going to happen, so put your money on Cruz for 2020 with Pence a fair outside bet too. The GOP are probably going to have to wait until 2024 to have a chance at the White House in the event of a Trump loss, perhaps in a George P Bush v Tim Kaine race (Bush is Jeb's half-Hispanic son)
Romney and McCain lost to Obama. Had Trump been running against Obama, he'd probably be looking at about a 10-point deficit and the biggest Republican presidential wipeout since 1964.
If 2020 is Cruz v Clinton, he'll very probably win.
Its curious that most of the early voting info leaking out seems to be relating directly or indirectly to Clinton's vote and being released by the Clinton Campaign?
Is that surprising considering Trump doesn't have anything close to a campaign.
Maybe but there are perhaps other potential reasons. A strong force in voting is the perception of the fait accompli. Why bother turning out when you know your candidate is finished before voting day?
One thing that gets lost in the discussion on the Hispanic vote is there is a big difference between English-speaking Hispanics and those who speak Spanish primarily - the figures I have seen for the former suggest only something like a 5-6 pt advantage for the Democrats while the latter has a huge advantage (something like 85-10). It is why you get some oddities with the polling around the Hispanic share going to Republicans: those who speak Spanish primarily tend to be poorer and so tend to have fewer landlines / broadband penetration so they get missed in a number of polls, which drives a big discrepancy between different polls.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
I knew what you mean. I grew up in northern New Jersey, where you had a huge cross-section of immigrants and first-generation Americans from all over Central and South American. Hispanics in America are far from being one monolithic body.
Still, according to the latest government figures, 64% of them in 2013 were of Mexican descent. Another 9.5% came from or their family came from Puerto Rico. That isn't promising for Trump.
True, but a lot of that Mexican percentage is in California, so it does not help HRC.
On a more general point, take out Nevada and a lot of the early voting numbers do not actually look that great for HRC - in North Carolina, the Republicans are up mid-teens in early votes from 2012 while the Democrats are flat and the AA vote is down; in Florida, it looks as though the Democrat lead is less than Obama had when he won; in Ohio, the AA vote is down. Not sure exactly - looking at the data - why there is the assumption she has it in the bag.
florida has had a massive increase in AA and Hispanic early voting, with a decent percentage being being 'new' voters.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler .
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surpriseseason.
If Trump did a centrist pivot, an 'etch a sketch' a la Mitt Romney if you like, he would no longer be Trump. The fact is the GOP have run two centrists for the last two elections, McCain and Romney and they have both lost and at the moment, despite trailing, Trump is going to do better than McCain according to every poll and maybe better than Romney too according to at least half the polls. The only way the GOP would pick a centrist again in 2020 is if Trump lost by a landslide, that is not going to happen, so put your money on Cruz for 2020 with Pence a fair outside bet too. The GOP are probably going to have to wait until 2024 to have a chance at the White House in the event of a Trump loss, perhaps in a George P Bush v Tim Kaine race (Bush is Jeb's half-Hispanic son)
I didn't say centrist pivot, I said a Sanders inspired pivot....big difference e.g. Romney would never propose all the big protectionist stuff.
I am not saying such an approach is good for America, just putting out there what I think a lot of people thought Trump would do to delineate himself from Clinton.
Trump is still pushing most of the protectionist stuff as far as I can see
The point remains - Europe wasn't the essential *security* structure of the post war world in Western Europe. NATO was/is.
But what made it so important was the fact that West Germany was a member, anchoring it in the West. Without the political project to pool economic sovereignty which predated this, it would have been much harder and it's possible to imagine other ways in which the geopolitical situation could have developed.
The important membership for West Germany was NATO - "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".
This was a critical fact long before the Coal and Steel pact began to evolve from it's simple beginnings.
It's beginnings were small-scale but not simple and it was clear from the outset that this was something fundamentally new in European affairs and came several years before West Germany joined NATO.
In retrospect it's easy to underestimate the political balancing act Adenauer had to perform but many things we take for granted were not at all inevitable. With reference to your quote, what interest did the Germans have in being kept down?
You make it sound like they had a choice. Essentially they were told what to do - as part of their application to re-join the human race. The Germans went along with it as proof that they were nice people now.
It depends how old you are - I am old enough to remember West Germany. A country which very deliberately did what it's partners expected it to do.
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Before his ban for antisemitism, Rod Crosby was posting sexist mysogynist bile on here about Hillary almost every day, and predicting a Trumpton victory. Shurley shume mistake?
Not really. Rod's Hitler .
I agree with that - and Hillary 317 is a reasonable forecast (and certainly NOT his wishes). But it's quite a turnaround.
I doubt his model accounted for the 2 months media scandal fest and the fact that Trump didn't do the sensible thing and pivot when he had won the Republican nomination.
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist.
Trump is closer to Clinton now than he was in September and other than the first debate the other 2 debates made little difference either way
I was just going to add that...and it doesn't surpriseseason.
If Trump did a centrist pivot, an 'etch a sketch' a la Mitt Romney if you like, he would no longer be Trump. The fact is the GOP have run two centrists for the last two elections, McCain and Romney and they have both son)
Romney and McCain lost to Obama. Had Trump been running against Obama, he'd probably be looking at about a 10-point deficit and the biggest Republican presidential wipeout since 1964.
If 2020 is Cruz v Clinton, he'll very probably win.
Perhaps but we will never know, however there was certainly never the level of enthusiasm from the GOP base for Romney and McCain there is for Trump and Obama was also able to generate that enthusiasm for the Democratic base in a way Hillary has not been able to do.
If it is Cruz v Clinton in 2020 I would expect a slightly bigger Clinton win than on Tuesday (assuming it is a win), Cruz does not appeal to the white working class as much as Trump does and suffers from the same lack of appeal to women and suburban college graduates as Trump does, though he may do a little better with evangelicals and Latinos. Incumbent presidents almost always increase their majority when they are running for re-election too, Obama being a rare exception
Question....why can't the US organize enough polling stations so you don't have to queue for hours on end to be able to vote? It is a total exception in the UK to have to wait to vote for a significant period of time.
They can but the GOP want to reduce early voting as it generally benefits the Democrats.
But this isn't new or restricted to only certain places, it happens in every election across the country and it seems like pretty much everybody has to endure this nonsense.
No it effects big cities much more. A rural town of a few thousands wont be effected.
Hmm. It take your point, but also I'm with Thomas Carlyle. I don't think history is entirely shaped by impersonal forces. However deplorable Trump may be, he is something a lot more than just the product of the political environment.
Sure and Trump can certainly make things worse, but stopping Trump won't fix things, Clinton is a part of the problem too. The lesser evil is not going to make things better.
Who will fix the things?
Praying for a knight on a white charger is part of the problem.
Word.
Though every now and again you do get the real deal - De Gaulle was a case where many (FDR especially) thought they were getting Boulanger II...
Can't see anyone vaguely statesmanlike in American politics at the moment, let alone a titan like De Gaulle, though.
Instead, the next Trump will be worse. He/She might well win.
Comments
https://www.twitter.com/adamgoldmanNYT/status/794336569406668801
With the fate of the planet hanging in the balance somebody must have swooped in in the nick of time and said, Stand back, I know Perl.
In Florida the early returns are tied Rep/Dem. You can't make any predictions from it, except it will probably be close.
Cheers Pulps,,,,and Peter up thread for the RodCrosby link.
He's a very clever man Rod........ I am a sucker for clever people.....I can forgive them pretty much anything, even a spot of holocaust denial. It's stupid people that I struggle with...
His current prediction is Clinton 317, Trump 215, tctc 6
Barring a noble and principled intervention by Romeny to endorse him tomorrow McMullin is sunk. It was a beautiful 25/1 dream while it lasted.
Reversion to the mean! 2 years ago we would have been happy to be mid table :-)
We are enjoying the Champions League and likely to win the group, but the European malarky is overrated. WBA won ugly, in that classic Pulis style.
Tsk ....
Were Trump to lose Utah I've got the pun to end all puns.
And Perl, the last computer language that really allowed you to be a guru.
"You wrote a five-line routine to do that? Here, look at this single line that does the same thing! Bask in my gloriousness! Mwahahahaha!"
NC Dem @ 8-5
Fl Dem @ 11-10
MT GOP @ 1-6
DC Dem @ 1-50
NC Dem @ Evens
Stein 0-4% @ 4-1
I can do 16........and YES
(2016 Election Winner)
100/1
2016 Presidential Election Winner
Stake
£1.00
Is it still alive
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule
Hillary is in Pennsylvania and Michigan
https://www.willhillarywin.com/hillary-clintons-events/
AndyJS's spreadsheet hopefully on election night....well he can fix it for me to pay for my New York fund at least.....
The problem today was the goalie. Zieler doesn't communicate well with the back four.
Still having fun though I don't think that I have seen Leicesters last relegation.
My ipad or the shitty technology on this site will not let me reply to your earleir comment
Define your bet on the end of the EU.
On a state basis, I therefore would be careful of reading across what is happening in Nevada to Florida - a large proportion of the Hispanics in Nevada (and California) come from poor Central American backgrounds and will have a greater weighting towards being mainly speaking Spanish primarily. In Florida, the influence is more Cuban and more English speaking, which suggests Trump might actually pick up some votes in that community.
0-4% would be amazing, the DC price is definitely, definitely wrong too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3911082/Police-called-prison-Bedford-following-reports-riot.html
No Andy....we are all adults here (well most of us....I'm actually a ten year old child prodigy from Ormskirk masquerading as an expat)........Peter from Putney always puts the DYOR proviso which is relevant to everything that is ever posted here from anyone.
I would love to see your spreadsheet though....out of curiosity (lie). And anyhow, I would never admit to losing money on the basis of taking a tip from pbCOM.....so all good....
You: There will be no EU in five years time.
Me: What odds will you give on the EU consisting of at least its current constituent members (minus UK) in five years time?
Name your odds and I'll consider a bet.
FWIW, I did sense that the election was perhaps heading back HRC's way after the events pof last week but I think Comey might have just chucked a whole load of gasoline onto the fire.
But. I have to say, Rod was really compassionate with me when my mum died recently....and I remember that....
Lets presume that all the media managed to find was his tax stuff and that he had stomped all over Sanders territory with the protectionist pro American angles, pro students, dropped the racist stuff and was half decent in the debates....
Instead with the odd exception he was more racist, more nutty, full on conspiracy theorist and even worse in the debates than anybody imagined.
Some things will get better in America, but they will be mostly despite the actions of the government rather than because of it.
Politics in America will remain dysfunctional and vulgar, and even if 2020 doesn't quite match the depths of 2016 I think the long term trend is for it to get worse.
This will mean that the anti-EU supporters will have their own barristers in the legal action, who can challenge claims made by Remain supporters and even the Government.
Mr Farage - the interim leader of the UK Independence Party - and other prominent Leave supporters are due to lead the march from Trafalgar Square along Whitehall to Parliament Square.'
Still, according to the latest government figures, 64% of them in 2013 were of Mexican descent. Another 9.5% came from or their family came from Puerto Rico. That isn't promising for Trump.
I normally thoroughly enjoy politics, polls and all that....but that second debate. It sickened me and made me worried about the USA, and by implication ourselves.
I really hope GOP will get it's act together in the future and find a candidate that is remotely normal......Trump has taken the fun out of politics for me..
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectProject/status/795378059570544645/photo/1
Deal?
On a more general point, take out Nevada and a lot of the early voting numbers do not actually look that great for HRC - in North Carolina, the Republicans are up mid-teens in early votes from 2012 while the Democrats are flat and the AA vote is down; in Florida, it looks as though the Democrat lead is less than Obama had when he won; in Ohio, the AA vote is down. Not sure exactly - looking at the data - why there is the assumption she has it in the bag.
Personally, while I am long Trump, it is pretty clear HRC will win the state.
I am not saying such an approach is good for America, just putting out there what I think a lot of people thought Trump would do to delineate himself from Clinton.
If 2020 is Cruz v Clinton, he'll very probably win.
Itll be close, but i do think clinton will win it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8
It depends how old you are - I am old enough to remember West Germany. A country which very deliberately did what it's partners expected it to do.
The modern united Germany is very different...
If it is Cruz v Clinton in 2020 I would expect a slightly bigger Clinton win than on Tuesday (assuming it is a win), Cruz does not appeal to the white working class as much as Trump does and suffers from the same lack of appeal to women and suburban college graduates as Trump does, though he may do a little better with evangelicals and Latinos. Incumbent presidents almost always increase their majority when they are running for re-election too, Obama being a rare exception
Can't see anyone vaguely statesmanlike in American politics at the moment, let alone a titan like De Gaulle, though.
Instead, the next Trump will be worse. He/She might well win.