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.
I did see it after I'd written that, and found it helpful. I think perhaps that is what Nate Silver meant, though he didn't spell it out for the benefit of the general audience.
As to whether Clinton has it in the bag, I certainly wouldn't assume that. But any straws in the wind to add to the evidence of the polls are helpful.
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.
Well obviously that two extremes, but you know what I mean it isn't just NYC with its massive population, we are this crazy queues in non-descript suburbs in non-descript towns / cities across the US.
Here in the UK, outside some rare examples most people can turn up to the polling station at anytime throughout the day & rarely wait very long at all...in fact it is a major news story if it happens.
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.
Being told what to do is one thing, but doing it and maintaining popular consent for it are another. I agree with your general point but don't think it detracts from the centrality of the Franco-German political settlement that became the nascent EEC to the whole story.
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.
I'll give you 2/1 now that Cruz will never be US president. You're falling into the trap of characterising Trump as a right-wing extremist, which he is not. And Cruz is.
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
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.
I'll give you 2/1 now that Cruz will never be US president. You're falling into the trap of characterising Trump as a right-wing extremist, which he is not. And Cruz is.
You do realise you can only collect on Cruz's death, right?
Pre-market trading is expecting the Dow to open nearly 300 points up tomorrow, recovering a significant part of last week's losses. So financial markets appear to be anticipating a Clinton win.
Pre-market trading is expecting the Dow to open nearly 300 points up tomorrow, recovering a significant part of last week's losses. So financial markets appear to be anticipating a Clinton win.
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.
Being told what to do is one thing, but doing it and maintaining popular consent for it are another. I agree with your general point but don't think it detracts from the centrality of the Franco-German political settlement that became the nascent EEC to the whole story.
The Franco-German political settlement was in parallel to NATO - and even in France & Germany at the time was seen as subsidiary to tieing Germany into NATO. Military security really dominated things in the early postwar years.
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,base in a way Hillary has not been able to do.
If it is Cruz v Clinton in
Or Bush Snr, or Carter.
They lost, they were not re-elected but Hillary is tougher and more ruthless than both of them and there is no Bill Clinton or Reagan on the horizon for the GOP in the short-term. In 1976 Reagan had almost beaten Ford for the GOP nomination, so Cruz is closer to Reagan on that basis but he would not have the appeal of Reagan in the general election. Clinton took the Democratic nomination in 1992 in a party ready for a centrist, the GOP are certainly not going to pick a centrist in 2020 in their current mood
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.
Being told what to do is one thing, but doing it and maintaining popular consent for it are another. I agree with your general point but don't think it detracts from the centrality of the Franco-German political settlement that became the nascent EEC to the whole story.
The Franco-German political settlement was in parallel to NATO - and even in France & Germany at the time was seen as subsidiary to tieing Germany into NATO. Military security really dominated things in the early postwar years.
You make my point. At the time it was clearly understood that the goal of the coal and steel community was to make war impossible and was a necessary step towards guaranteeing military security. These were not parallel, unrelated developments. It's only now with the passage of time that we can complacently look back and say that the EU and its predecessors had nothing to do with it.
Remember that at the time NATO was founded, the DDR didn't yet exist and it was only after West Germany was admitted to NATO that the Warsaw Pact was concluded.
'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.'
In theory the Court will be studiously neutral about such things. In reality I suspect they will be counter-productive. The Court will be keen to avoid the impression that they are pliable to pitchforks.
'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.'
In theory the Court will be studiously neutral about such things. In reality I suspect they will be counter-productive. The Court will be keen to avoid the impression that they are pliable to pitchforks.
Just as with the referendum itself, what Farage appears to want and what he really wants may not necessarily be the same.
Pre-market trading is expecting the Dow to open nearly 300 points up tomorrow, recovering a significant part of last week's losses. So financial markets appear to be anticipating a Clinton win.
Sounds familiar...
Yes indeed. But there is no rule that history necessarily repeats itself.
They lost, they were not re-elected but Hillary is tougher and more ruthless than both of them and there is no Bill Clinton or Reagan on the horizon for the GOP in the short-term. In 1976 Reagan had almost beaten Ford for the GOP nomination, so Cruz is closer to Reagan on that basis but he would not have the appeal of Reagan in the general election. Clinton took the Democratic nomination in 1992 in a party ready for a centrist, the GOP are certainly not going to pick a centrist in 2020 in their current mood
Of the last eight presidents, half went forward at re-election time, and half went backwards,
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.
They lost, they were not re-elected but Hillary is tougher and more ruthless than both of them and there is no Bill Clinton or Reagan on the horizon for the GOP in the short-term. In 1976 Reagan had almost beaten Ford for the GOP nomination, so Cruz is closer to Reagan on that basis but he would not have the appeal of Reagan in the general election. Clinton took the Democratic nomination in 1992 in a party ready for a centrist, the GOP are certainly not going to pick a centrist in 2020 in their current mood
Of the last eight presidents, half went forward at re-election time, and half went backwards,
Of the presidents since WW2 who were re-elected, only Obama got less votes and a lower electoral college margin when re-elected than he did when he was first elected. As I said I would expect Clinton to be re-elected
Thanks - yes, that fits with other stuff, and why GOP people are so pessimistic about Nevada.
If Clinton has won Nevada, her price should be 1.1ish. It's a very difficult route for Trump without it.
Surely of itself it doesn't make it all that much harder for him? Essentially, he will need to win Pennsylvania or Michigan rather than being able to do it with a smaller state.
'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 .'
In theory the Court will be studiously neutral about such things. In reality I suspect they will be counter-productive. The Court will be keen to avoid the impression that they are pliable to pitchforks.
Well there were no pitchforks in the High Court and the Court voted against the Brexit side's request for Article 50 to be invoked without Parliament so they have nothing to lose, the march will in any case really be targeted at Parliament not the judges as if the ruling is upheld it will be Parliament who then vote on Article 50 and it will be intended to show MPs the scale of opposition they face if they vote it down
They lost, they were not re-elected but Hillary is tougher and more ruthless than both of them and there is no Bill Clinton or Reagan on the horizon for the GOP in the short-term. In 1976 Reagan had almost beaten Ford for the GOP nomination, so Cruz is closer to Reagan on that basis but he would not have the appeal of Reagan in the general election. Clinton took the Democratic nomination in 1992 in a party ready for a centrist, the GOP are certainly not going to pick a centrist in 2020 in their current mood
Of the last eight presidents, half went forward at re-election time, and half went backwards,
Of the presidents since WW2 who were re-elected, only Obama got less votes and a lower electoral college margin when re-elected than he did when he was first elected. As I said I would expect Clinton to be re-elected
Your 'were re-elected' proviso makes your analysis less than useful.
Of those Presidents first elected on a narrow mandate, only George W Bush increased his share in the subsequent election is equally true, and has equally little predictive power.
They lost, they were not re-elected but Hillary is tougher and more ruthless than both of them and there is no Bill Clinton or Reagan on the horizon for the GOP in the short-term. In 1976 Reagan had almost beaten Ford for the GOP nomination, so Cruz is closer to Reagan on that basis but he would not have the appeal of Reagan in the general election. Clinton took the Democratic nomination in 1992 in a party ready for a centrist, the GOP are certainly not going to pick a centrist in 2020 in their current mood
Of the last eight presidents, half went forward at re-election time, and half went backwards,
Of the presidents since WW2 who were re-elected, only Obama got less votes and a lower electoral college margin when re-elected than he did when he was first elected. As I said I would expect Clinton to be re-elected
Your 'were re-elected' proviso makes your analysis less than useful.
Of those Presidents first elected on a narrow mandate, only George W Bush increased his share in the subsequent election is equally true, and has equally little predictive power.
JFK got a narrow mandate, LBJ won a landslide in 1964 (as JFK almost certainly would have done too), Nixon got a narrow mandate, won a landslide in 1972, George W Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, won by a clear popular vote margin in 2004
Thanks - yes, that fits with other stuff, and why GOP people are so pessimistic about Nevada.
If Clinton has won Nevada, her price should be 1.1ish. It's a very difficult route for Trump without it.
Surely of itself it doesn't make it all that much harder for him? Essentially, he will need to win Pennsylvania or Michigan rather than being able to do it with a smaller state.
Assuming CO goes Dem for the same reasons as you say he now has to flip PA (538 D +3.4) or MI (538 D +4). These both look like a substantially heavier lift than NH (538 D +1.9).
Obviously this all assumes the state polling is reasonably accurate about how close everywhere is.
Problem with scheduling like 4 events in one day that HYUFD was so impressed by: Trump running several hours late, leaving mostly-elderly supporters standing around getting annoyed at him.
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.
"Household debts have spiralled to a whopping £1.5tn in the UK for the first time, new statistics show. Indebtedness is growing at the fastest rate since before the credit crunch of 2008, says the Money Charity."
"UK adults owe an average of nearly £30,000 each - mostly in mortgages, but also in loans and credit cards - 83% of the country's annual economic output."
"Some 87% of this debt is in the form of mortgages, secured by property. But UK adults also now owe an average of £3,737 in loans and credit cards. With inflation set to rise, borrowers are urged to start cutting their debts."
Following last night's good news for Hillary, IG has the Dow opening up 220 points, with the FTSE 100 joining in the fun, up 60 points.
City Index similarly - indeed the move is bigger since the after market trading on Friday was anticipating further falls today, with all the talk of Trump. If the DJ opens as forecast the substantial part of last week's losses will have been recovered; the FTSE recovery is smaller leaving a 200+ point loss from last week in place, after the recovery of the £ to $1.24 as Brexit was perceived to run into trouble. The currency feed into the FTSE is producing the counter-intuitive result that our shares are rising the more likely Brexit looks to happen (sooner), and vice versa.
I cannot help but see similarities between Clinton and Brown. Both have/had been movers in their party for years. Both coveted the top job for years, and schemed to get it. Both held a major office of state, and was seen as generally doing a reasonable, if unspectacular job in it at the time.
I wonder if, unlike Brown, she has any idea what to do with the top job once she gets it?
Yes, he is still making a play for some 'Berniebots'
Yes, the key to the election, and why the polls might be wrong, is the previously non-voting Bernie supporters. Will they stay at home, vote for Hillary as a Democrat, or vote for the Donald as NOTA?
"Household debts have spiralled to a whopping £1.5tn in the UK for the first time, new statistics show. Indebtedness is growing at the fastest rate since before the credit crunch of 2008, says the Money Charity."
"UK adults owe an average of nearly £30,000 each - mostly in mortgages, but also in loans and credit cards - 83% of the country's annual economic output."
"Some 87% of this debt is in the form of mortgages, secured by property. But UK adults also now owe an average of £3,737 in loans and credit cards. With inflation set to rise, borrowers are urged to start cutting their debts."
Won't inflation effectively reduce debts? Do they mean interest rates?
"Household debts have spiralled to a whopping £1.5tn in the UK for the first time, new statistics show. Indebtedness is growing at the fastest rate since before the credit crunch of 2008, says the Money Charity."
"UK adults owe an average of nearly £30,000 each - mostly in mortgages, but also in loans and credit cards - 83% of the country's annual economic output."
"Some 87% of this debt is in the form of mortgages, secured by property. But UK adults also now owe an average of £3,737 in loans and credit cards. With inflation set to rise, borrowers are urged to start cutting their debts."
Won't inflation effectively reduce debts? Do they mean interest rates?
Yes, the rest of their comments do go on to make that point - my fault for just cutting and pasting what I thought was the core of their argument. Sorry.
"More inflation means higher interest rates, which we'll all have to pay on our mortgages, loans and credit cards."
Britons voted for fewer white immigrants and more brown ones apparently. Who knew?
From what I was hearing during the campaign first hand from a few people of Asian background, that was certainly the word the leave campaign was trying to put about amongst our Asian populations. The argument was that open access to EU migrants was making it more difficult to come to the UK from India and Pakistan, both because the need for Asian immigrants was lower and because it was the only immigration the government could cut back on.
The fact that some of the same local population were singled out for "when are you going home?" type abuse after the vote suggest that the nuance of this argument may not fully have been appreciated by some white voters.
Britons voted for fewer white immigrants and more brown ones apparently. Who knew?
From what I was hearing during the campaign first hand from a few people of Asian background, that was certainly the word the leave campaign was trying to put about amongst our Asian populations. The argument was that open access to EU migrants was making it more difficult to come to the UK from India and Pakistan, both because the need for Asian immigrants was lower and because it was the only immigration the government could cut back on.
That was my experience too, with Asian Brits wanting equal access the same as EU migrants for their family and friends. It looks like being equally poor access!
What is really bugging them is the drop in Sterling and its effect on remittences. A number are building houses in India or Phillipines to retire to, and now need to save 15% more. There is quite a bit of Bregret in this group.
"Household debts have spiralled to a whopping £1.5tn in the UK for the first time, new statistics show. Indebtedness is growing at the fastest rate since before the credit crunch of 2008, says the Money Charity."
"UK adults owe an average of nearly £30,000 each - mostly in mortgages, but also in loans and credit cards - 83% of the country's annual economic output."
"Some 87% of this debt is in the form of mortgages, secured by property. But UK adults also now owe an average of £3,737 in loans and credit cards. With inflation set to rise, borrowers are urged to start cutting their debts."
Won't inflation effectively reduce debts? Do they mean interest rates?
I was tempted to flip GA, but I think Trump will edge it.
A tidy little profit on your spread bet if this forecast proves to be correct or thereabouts. Did you see my post btw, explaining how this works for you in P&L terms?
I'm sticking with my earlier forecast of 308 ECVs for Hillary, still somewhat ahead of what 538.com are forecasting for her.
I cannot help but see similarities between Clinton and Brown. Both have/had been movers in their party for years. Both coveted the top job for years, and schemed to get it. Both held a major office of state, and was seen as generally doing a reasonable, if unspectacular job in it at the time.
I wonder if, unlike Brown, she has any idea what to do with the top job once she gets it?
Britons voted for fewer white immigrants and more brown ones apparently. Who knew?
From what I was hearing during the campaign first hand from a few people of Asian background, that was certainly the word the leave campaign was trying to put about amongst our Asian populations. The argument was that open access to EU migrants was making it more difficult to come to the UK from India and Pakistan, both because the need for Asian immigrants was lower and because it was the only immigration the government could cut back on.
That was my experience too, with Asian Brits wanting equal access the same as EU migrants for their family and friends. It looks like being equally poor access!
What is really bugging them is the drop in Sterling and its effect on remittences. A number are building houses in India or Phillipines to retire to, and now need to save 15% more. There is quite a bit of Bregret in this group.
Yeah, I have a Thai friend working in London whose remittances back home are supporting six relatives; the big currency depreciation hasn't been good news for them.
I was tempted to flip GA, but I think Trump will edge it.
A tidy little profit on your spread bet if this forecast proves to be correct or thereabouts. Did you see my post btw, explaining how this works for you in P&L terms?
I'm sticking with my earlier forecast of 308 ECVs for Hillary, still somewhat ahead of what 538.com are forecasting for her.
Alaska would be a nice bet on Hillary, if it comes in. (Edit/4.6 on Betfair just now)
I was tempted to flip GA, but I think Trump will edge it.
A tidy little profit on your spread bet if this forecast proves to be correct or thereabouts. Did you see my post btw, explaining how this works for you in P&L terms?
I'm sticking with my earlier forecast of 308 ECVs for Hillary, still somewhat ahead of what 538.com are forecasting for her.
Alaska would be a nice bet on Hillary, if it comes in.
Morning all. So here we are, 24 hours to go and Betfair says it's a clear win for Hillary, back in to 1.21 this morning. Do we agree that Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada are the key States to watch?
Morning all. So here we are, 24 hours to go and Betfair says it's a clear win for Hillary, back in to 1.21 this morning. Do we agree that Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada are the key States to watch?
I see that the unmatched hundreds of pounds on Betfair offering 1.02 if there isn't a GE in 2016, which I flagged yesterday afternoon, has now all been snapped up!
It's at times like these that I really lose confidence in the forecasts produced by 538.com. Seemingly, on the strength of one batch op polls timed at 1.04am EST this morning, they have increased Hillary's percentage chance of winning tomorrow's POTUS election by a whopping great two whole points from 64.9% to 66.9%. And how has this affected their ECV predictions I hear you ask - In fact by only the tiniest jot - with Hillary +2 and Donald -3 .
Assuming Hillary wins, do you reckon the Trumpers will accept the result or go down the road of the Bitter Remainers and try to stop her being appointed?
Fancy not accepting the result. So different, so very different, from our own dear voters.
Steve Schale @steveschale 57m57 minutes ago Florida, USA I slept 4 hours, and ate all of a snickers bar, some chicken nuggets, and a muffin today. This thing better end before it kills me.
And he doesn't have to eat all the popcorn we have to consume here on PB.
It's at times like these that I really lose confidence in the forecasts produced by 538.com. Seemingly, on the strength of one batch op polls timed at 1.04am EST this morning, they have increased Hillary's percentage chance of winning tomorrow's POTUS election by a whopping great two whole points from 64.9% to 66.9%. And how has this affected their ECV predictions I hear you ask - In fact by only the tiniest jot - with Hillary +2 and Donald -3 .
Is that the NH poll? Bear in mind that their model doesn't know about the early vote in Nevada so it thinks a lot turns on NH.
What sort of stupid do you have to be to post an online death threat and include your contact details?
A UKIP voter, like wot he said.
Not all UKIP voters are morons who post death threats and include their contact details but all morons who post...
I suspect it's largely a case of the police looking busy and important by investigating everything however inconsequential. It makes a change fro their usual modus operandi of open-ended police bail (so the stigma of guilt and hope that shit sticks) and hope that some evidence is found later, I suppose.
Assuming Hillary wins, do you reckon the Trumpers will accept the result or go down the road of the Bitter Remainers and try to stop her being appointed?
Fancy not accepting the result. So different, so very different, from our own dear voters.
American voters do at least have the advantage that the job description, its terms & conditions, and the time and date that Hillary would take office are published before the vote actually takes place.
Ugh, just found myself agreeing with Michael O'Leary re airport expansion
I'm away but I presume it's a case of "its unnecessary". If so, he made that argument about the building of T2 in Dublin. If that hadn't been built then the airport would now be very capacity constrained (let's not mention the 2nd runway though).
I see the daily mail today moves onto publishing photos and details of the Supreme Court judges.
Naked intimidation.
They misread their targets (if they genuine hope to shift the vote). Judges are so allergic to being pressured that it risks overriding a neutral assessment of the case.
Interesting Ashcroft assessment of the Trump-Brexit analogy:
Morning all. So here we are, 24 hours to go and Betfair says it's a clear win for Hillary, back in to 1.21 this morning. Do we agree that Florida, Pennsylvania and Nevada are the key States to watch?
Not so sure about Pennsylvania. Ohio? Michigan?
Team Hillary had six events scheduled in Pennsylvania yesterday and today, which suggests something or other; tomorrow there is also the final GOTV event there with all the Clintons and Obamas.
Assuming Hillary wins, do you reckon the Trumpers will accept the result or go down the road of the Bitter Remainers and try to stop her being appointed?
Fancy not accepting the result. So different, so very different, from our own dear voters.
Well, it's been a really coaster content but we're nearly at an end. The Brazilian Grand Prix is this coming weekend, and if Rosberg wins the title is his. If not, the title will be decided at the final race.
[An aside, if Rosberg hadn't moved over for Hamilton in Monaco, the German would already be world champion].
Comments
As to whether Clinton has it in the bag, I certainly wouldn't assume that. But any straws in the wind to add to the evidence of the polls are helpful.
Here in the UK, outside some rare examples most people can turn up to the polling station at anytime throughout the day & rarely wait very long at all...in fact it is a major news story if it happens.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/election-2016-nevada-harry-reid-clinton-trump-early-vote-latinos-214426#ixzz4PGuLlH3C
Remember that at the time NATO was founded, the DDR didn't yet exist and it was only after West Germany was admitted to NATO that the Warsaw Pact was concluded.
i doubt it
Thanks - yes, that fits with other stuff, and why GOP people are so pessimistic about Nevada.
If Clinton has won Nevada, her price should be 1.1ish. It's a very difficult route for Trump without it.
https://twitter.com/MattHjourno/status/795402635209625600
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/conservative-intellectuals-trump-2016-politics-policy-214424
Of those Presidents first elected on a narrow mandate, only George W Bush increased his share in the subsequent election is equally true, and has equally little predictive power.
Obviously this all assumes the state polling is reasonably accurate about how close everywhere is.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-transit-strike-in-philly-could-lower-turnout-among-black-and-poor-voters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
https://twitter.com/sarahmccammon/status/795466177694859268
The Drama Continues ....
111 minutes
"UK adults owe an average of nearly £30,000 each - mostly in mortgages, but also in loans and credit cards - 83% of the country's annual economic output."
"Some 87% of this debt is in the form of mortgages, secured by property. But UK adults also now owe an average of £3,737 in loans and credit cards. With inflation set to rise, borrowers are urged to start cutting their debts."
ARSE4US ....
Final Release ....
9:00 AM ....
Nope ... cannot ... resist ...
No-one's heard from Plato this morning?
I wonder if, unlike Brown, she has any idea what to do with the top job once she gets it?
"More inflation means higher interest rates, which we'll all have to pay on our mortgages, loans and credit cards."
http://www.270towin.com/maps/VNjpk
I was tempted to flip GA, but I think Trump will edge it.
The fact that some of the same local population were singled out for "when are you going home?" type abuse after the vote suggest that the nuance of this argument may not fully have been appreciated by some white voters.
What is really bugging them is the drop in Sterling and its effect on remittences. A number are building houses in India or Phillipines to retire to, and now need to save 15% more. There is quite a bit of Bregret in this group.
I'm sticking with my earlier forecast of 308 ECVs for Hillary, still somewhat ahead of what 538.com are forecasting for her.
looking at the pictures from the Marr show, I think the BBC have deliberately made Nigel Farage skin look darker
I think Alaska is worth a punt.
Seemingly, on the strength of one batch op polls timed at 1.04am EST this morning, they have increased Hillary's percentage chance of winning tomorrow's POTUS election by a whopping great two whole points from 64.9% to 66.9%.
And how has this affected their ECV predictions I hear you ask - In fact by only the tiniest jot - with Hillary +2 and Donald -3 .
The Phantom Trump Manace ....
1 Hour ....
Fancy not accepting the result. So different, so very different, from our own dear voters.
I slept 4 hours, and ate all of a snickers bar, some chicken nuggets, and a muffin today. This thing better end before it kills me.
And he doesn't have to eat all the popcorn we have to consume here on PB.
Interesting Ashcroft assessment of the Trump-Brexit analogy:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/11/donald-trump-is-like-brexit-in-three-key-ways/
The Clinton hate industry (and it is a small industry), has been going on for at least a couple of decades, as this interesting and rather depressing article describes:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/
As for the political alienation which provided fertile ground for the Trump campaign, it's not going away anytime soon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3911656/And-s-lot-lining-EU-links-judges-rule-Brexit-impact.html
Thats basically biographical information, the paper isn't publishing their home addresses!
Well, it's been a really coaster content but we're nearly at an end. The Brazilian Grand Prix is this coming weekend, and if Rosberg wins the title is his. If not, the title will be decided at the final race.
[An aside, if Rosberg hadn't moved over for Hamilton in Monaco, the German would already be world champion].