Florida: Right now, registered Democrats are ahead by about 7,200 votes. That pales in comparison to the roughly 146,000-voter edge they saw at this point in 2008. African-Americans were 16% of the early voting electorate that year, but they're only about 13% of the electorate so far in 2016. An overwhelming majority of black voters in Florida are registered with the Democratic Party.
Obama extended his lead on the day.
What I think we can say is that it's close.
I tell you...the amount of posts on pbCOM picking through early voting, ethnic breakdowns, bla, bla, bla.......you are like Shakespeares witches, looking at the tea leaves. I am non the wiser from all this early voting because everyone here has a different opinion and a different evidence source to back them up....
Were you around for the Republican primaries?
It was exit polls, Rubio's lead among first generation immigrant single mothers in the countryside that time.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
My apologies. I have seen enough posts though of people who are all invariably right leaning, who have tried to draw equivalence between the two...and I have seen that for what is; namely Clinton haters who put their partisan feeling over and above the wider interests. That is where ideology is dangerous.
But fair play to you Sean....you haven't done that now.
I am massively partisan....but if you gave me the choice of Corbyn or May, or Corbyn or Hammond....I would go for the Tory. I know Corbyn would be utterly useless, and wouldn't even want to risk the fact that he could be PM.....
My view is that Clinton would be a bad President in most things and American decline might be inexorable afterwards.
Trump might just be a great President ... but there's a far larger chance that he would be catastrophically bad.
With my cynical black sense of humour the howls of guardianistas on the event of a Trump win would amuse me. But it would be only a silver lining against a black cloud (not least because my investments would be many thousands lower).
83,594 in-person early votes in Franklin County, up 22% from '12 with 1 week less voting. 34,423. R: 11,627. Rest independent/other.
Errm which Franklin county, there must be one in every state.
Not in Rhode Island!
(Rhode Island is the sort of place that has a county, Washington, that no-one ever calls by its real name; it's universally called "South County" by the locals.)
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
Why do we require a trade deal with India?
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.
It was also fucking idiotic.
I'm sure you find it hugely galling, but Labour Leave played a blinder. The best of any of the Referendum campaigns.
And ultimately, decisive.
Yes it was effective because so-called left wingers knowingly spread outright lies about NHS funding. We know this because they posted about it here on PB. There were no depths to which the left-nationalist arm of Brexit would not sink.
May, Fox and Boris need to calmly and carefully explain to the Leave-voting WCC why increased immigration from India is in fact a good thing and ultimately to their economic benefit. It won't be enough to dismiss them as being insufficiently pro-globalization and handwave their concerns away with sneers of 'waysist'.
Skilled migration from India is better than unskilled migration from Europe?
Not if numbers are your concern. Indian's tend to bring extended families whereas Europeans usually come alone.
Narrowly it does via Betfair (A narrow victory please though)
Also it will send the US$ down, and mean that my pension autobuys more US stocks cheaply so that when the inevitable Kennedy victory comes around in 2020 or 2024 the rebound will be stronger.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
Some argue that the much of the USA is the product of past aggression.Am a bit surprised that back in the late30/early 40s the Nazis did not throw this back in FDR's face- given that such events were then within living memory.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
Texas in the Civil War - from Wiki:
"Some Texan military units fought in the Civil War east of the Mississippi River, but Texas was most useful for supplying soldiers and horses for Confederate forces. Texas' supply role lasted until mid-1863, after which time Union gunboats controlled the Mississippi River, making large transfers of men, horses or cattle impossible. Some cotton was sold in Mexico, but most of the crop became useless because of the Union naval blockade of Galveston, Houston, and other ports."
@Tyson I've taken a week off the internet ( and thus PB ) as I found Brexit ( but especially the Brexit hiatus ) too depressing. I'm sure I wasn't adding anything to the PB debate which in any case was jog jammed. PB has a colossal over representition of globalising free trade Brexiteers who are in venial denial about what they did in creating then validating the Leave Campaign. It's curious many Remainers seem to better understand the cultural landmark that was Leave better than many on here who voted for it.
But that's an aside. Nothing new has happened. Even the A50 court case is largely theatrics. From the very beginning by allowing leapfrogging and clearering Supreme Court diaries in December they have stuck to May's original timetable. It was May not the courts who extended the deadline to March 31st in her Conference interview. It's hardly surprising the poor woman has bought us a few extra months to sort through this clusterfuck**k but fundamentally nothing has happened. IMHO the courts are helping here by allowing frothers to ignore the fact it's the government who is voluntarily delaying things.
The whole issue is in hiatus until we have a government policy on the Big Ticket stuff. In the meantime we just have to wait. Let the devaluation work through to inflation. Let the complexities refuse to go away. Let them own it a few more months. Let the poison work through the body politic a bit further. Let the bed wetting liberal Brexiters sweat a bit. We'll see what the state of play is in mid January when no one has been paid yet and everything is grimly the same as it was. As it was always going to be.
Over the past week I've come round to the view that we have to see Brexit through, and stopping it is not an option. I think that, if we fudge it through and stay in the EU ie associate membership, EFTA, out of the EU in name only etc, the forces that led to the Brexit vote will not be satisfied and we will end up with some kind of massive populist revolt. There is no evidence that peoples minds are changing, not even now the Scottish and Irish position is becoming clearer.
Its better to accept the decision and face the consequences. I think it will be painful, far more than £4300 per week painful, but if we are a democracy, we have to face the truth, because there is no 'going back' option. We can't turn the clock back six months, six years or a decade. We can't go back.
The people - the idiots - voted to trigger article 50 on June 24th. They have to live with the consequences of their decision. It was inconceivably stupid of Cameron to allow us to get in to this position, but he ultimately put his own political career ahead of the stability of the UK as an entity. He has to live with his decision, as we all do.
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.
It was also fucking idiotic.
I'm sure you find it hugely galling, but Labour Leave played a blinder. The best of any of the Referendum campaigns.
And ultimately, decisive.
Yes it was effective because so-called left wingers knowingly spread outright lies about NHS funding. We know this because they posted about it here on PB. There were no depths to which the left-nationalist arm of Brexit would not sink.
Did they shout 'British Jobs For British Workers' ?
The Labour Leave movement probably had a strong crossover with Labour's NOtoAV supporters - who were also very effective.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
Texas in the Civil War - from Wiki:
"Some Texan military units fought in the Civil War east of the Mississippi River, but Texas was most useful for supplying soldiers and horses for Confederate forces. Texas' supply role lasted until mid-1863, after which time Union gunboats controlled the Mississippi River, making large transfers of men, horses or cattle impossible. Some cotton was sold in Mexico, but most of the crop became useless because of the Union naval blockade of Galveston, Houston, and other ports."
My apologies. I have seen enough posts though of people who are all invariably right leaning, who have tried to draw equivalence between the two...and I have seen that for what is; namely Clinton haters who put their partisan feeling over and above the wider interests. That is where ideology is dangerous.
But fair play to you Sean....you haven't done that now.
I am massively partisan....but if you gave me the choice of Corbyn or May, or Corbyn or Hammond....I would go for the Tory. I know Corbyn would be utterly useless, and wouldn't even want to risk the fact that he could be PM.....
There is no equivalence at all in my mind. I detest Clinton and pretty much all that she stands for in terms of elitist arrogance. But I would campaign for her and vote for her in a heartbeat as long as her opponent is Trump. I am not given to hyperbole when it comes to individuals but I do believe he is genuinely dangerous both for the US and the rest of the world.
Thoughtful post....sometimes you have to hold something and go against your partisan instincts because you know that is probably right.....
Until something better comes along with the Labour Party.....my support is with Theresa May
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.” “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said. The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!
The role of Florida in the Civil War - a significant source of supplies to the Confederacy. From Wiki:
"As Florida was an important supply route for the Confederate army, Union forces operated a blockade around the entire state. Union troops occupied major ports such as Cedar Key, Jacksonville, Key West, and Pensacola early in the war. Confederate forces moved quickly to seize control of many of Florida's U.S. Army forts, succeeding in most cases, with the significant exceptions of Fort Jefferson, Fort Pickens and Fort Zachary Taylor, which stayed firmly in Federal control throughout the war.
Governor John Milton, an ardent secessionist, throughout the war stressed the importance of Florida as a supplier of goods, rather than personnel. Florida was a large provider of food (particularly beef cattle) and salt for the Confederate Army. The 8,436-mile coastline and 11,000 miles of rivers, streams, and waterways proved a haven for blockade runners and a daunting task for patrols by Federal warships. However, the state's small population (140,000 residents making it last in size in the Confederacy), relatively remote location, and meager industry limited its overall strategic importance."
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
That's what it did last time.
Actually really interesting part of my trip in New Orleans to read about the management of the ex-Confederate states after the war, as the nation lost interest and there was tension between breaking up the old order and returning basic prosperity.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
That's what it did last time.
I doubt that it would be quite so easy nowadays! Imagine if we did that to Alex Salmond and the SNP leaders.
But it will be a damn close run thing, as Wellington once said.
He did get a helping hand from the Prussians about five in the afternoon. Just think if that intervention had not happened we almost certainly would not be sitting here tonight thinking about a Trump vs Clinton election.......
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
Yet his own model is predicting a handy Clinton win, to be clear.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
1928 was still a GOP landslide (the biggest of three 1920 victories IIRC) - the swing to the Democrats being because in 1924 the opposition had been split between Democrats and Progressives.
Likewise the 1936 and 1984 victories were so huge that even strong swings in 1940 and 1988 still allowed comfortable wins.
My apologies. I have seen enough posts though of people who are all invariably right leaning, who have tried to draw equivalence between the two...and I have seen that for what is; namely Clinton haters who put their partisan feeling over and above the wider interests. That is where ideology is dangerous.
But fair play to you Sean....you haven't done that now.
I am massively partisan....but if you gave me the choice of Corbyn or May, or Corbyn or Hammond....I would go for the Tory. I know Corbyn would be utterly useless, and wouldn't even want to risk the fact that he could be PM.....
There is no equivalence at all in my mind. I detest Clinton and pretty much all that she stands for in terms of elitist arrogance. But I would campaign for her and vote for her in a heartbeat as long as her opponent is Trump. I am not given to hyperbole when it comes to individuals but I do believe he is genuinely dangerous both for the US and the rest of the world.
Thoughtful post....sometimes you have to hold something and go against your partisan instincts because you know that is probably right.....
Until something better comes along with the Labour Party.....my support is with Theresa May
If a general election were held tomorrow, I would struggle to find anyone to vote for.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.
True, but that was 1861. The world has changed immeasurably since then. The concept of national self-determination wasn't widely supported at the time.
The realpolitik of the situation suggests if it was the clear will of the peoples of a US state to secede, then a political solution would have to be reached. You'd get a fair share of naysayers and constitutional purists griping, but something would be done. If the UK had voted for Brexit in the absence of an Article 50 provision, an arrangement would have been reached (it would just have taken more time and headaches).
Also worth pointing out that the main issue surrounding secession in 1861 was very morally objectionable compared to what the justification would probably be nowadays.
Of course, this is all a bit of a moot point as there are no serious proposals for such a move.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
If that's who I think it is, then he's saying it's a narrow Clinton win, unless the polls are systemically wrong, in which case Trump clinches it.
I think that's right, and not different from what we've been saying on here.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
Yet his own model is predicting a handy Clinton win, to be clear.
I think the most likely way for Trump to win the election is by winning Pennsylvania where Clinton's average lead with RCP is just 1.9 points. It'll be all eyes on the PA exit poll tomorrow night.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
Yet his own model is predicting a handy Clinton win, to be clear.
Of course - any model based off the polling will.
Crosby's model predicted a Tory majority in 2015 - the polling did not.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
That's what it did last time.
Actually really interesting part of my trip in New Orleans to read about the management of the ex-Confederate states after the war, as the nation lost interest and there was tension between breaking up the old order and returning basic prosperity.
Well it was the disputed election of "Rutherfraud" B. Hayes as President in 1876 that put paid to Reconstruction and put the old white elite back into power in the South.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
I suppose they're assuming some psychological projection involved. If people themselves are considering going for Trump, but won't admit it, they'll say that their neighbours will.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
I have a deep feeling of unease at this election. I find it very difficult to call. This is probably the Brexit/GE2015 effect - in recent years we've seen polls, forecasts and collective wisdom widely off the mark.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
That's what it did last time.
They didn't actually hang the secessionist leaders as traitors though. Davis was indicted for treason but was never tried and was quietly released a couple of years after the war.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
Yes. The Federal government sends in the Army, arrests the secessionist leaders, hangs them as traitors, imports federalists to fill the civil administration, disarms the National Guard and runs it as a colony until it readmits it as a State.
That's what it did last time.
Actually really interesting part of my trip in New Orleans to read about the management of the ex-Confederate states after the war, as the nation lost interest and there was tension between breaking up the old order and returning basic prosperity.
New Orleans was capured early in the war by the Union as part of the blockade, so spent very little time in the Confederacy. Indeed the Emancipation proclomation of 1863 did not apply here and other Union occupied areas. So Lincoln only freed slaves in territory he could not control.
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.
It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure how you'd reach a position where a large enough percentage of the population would agitate for such a thing.
Constitutionally, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that states can't secede: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White In theory, there's nothing in the US constitution to stop today's Supreme Court overruling that decision, but that's never going to happen.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
Yet his own model is predicting a handy Clinton win, to be clear.
Of course - any model based off the polling will.
Crosby's model predicted a Tory majority in 2015 - the polling did not.
Rod's 2015 UK model was the Lebo and Norpoth model (before they messed it up) which is not based on vote share polls but on leader ratings. His 2016 POTUS prediction is however based on polls (I think)
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
The idea is it depersonalizes the question. If I ask you directly who you will vote for you might give me the socially acceptable response if you are socially sensitive, rather than your true feeling. If I ask you about your neighbour it allows you to project your feelings while not triggering the subconcious need to please.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
It also showed Trump getting 30% of Blacks, 40% of Hispanics, 60% of remaining non-whites and only a 3 point deficit with women. That's somewhat optimistic.
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour.... A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
Yet his own model is predicting a handy Clinton win, to be clear.
Of course - any model based off the polling will.
Crosby's model predicted a Tory majority in 2015 - the polling did not.
Rod's 2015 UK model was the Lebo and Norpoth model (before they messed it up) which is not based on vote share polls but on leader ratings. His 2016 POTUS prediction is however based on polls (I think)
With both JackW and RodCrosby calling it for Clinton, Trump looks toast. But like Brexit, the early voting took place last week so not influenced by late swings.
It's almost as if they had the resources of the FBI at their disposal.
Incidentally as part of my job I have reviewed 2,000 emails in a day before... (no overtime)
I am guessing they easily managed to discard 600k of them as they were titled things such as "dirty young sluts"...
I just wish the ones in my job were :P
They were someone else's emails? So presumably step one is to run a search on "Clinton" and "Hillary" to focus in on those sent to or from her or that mention her. That might well have narrowed the task down considerably.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
The idea is it depersonalizes the question. If I ask you directly who you will vote for you might give me the socially acceptable response if you are socially sensitive, rather than your true feeling. If I ask you about your neighbour it allows you to project your feelings while not triggering the subconcious need to please.
I've got a good friend who is supporting Donald Trump.
It's almost as if they had the resources of the FBI at their disposal.
Incidentally as part of my job I have reviewed 2,000 emails in a day before... (no overtime)
I am guessing they easily managed to discard 600k of them as they were titled things such as "dirty young sluts"...
I just wish the ones in my job were :P
They were someone else's emails? So presumably step one is to run a search on "Clinton" and "Hillary" to focus in on those sent to or from her or that mention her. That might well have narrowed the task down considerably.
And possibly taking anything out with the word porn...that might have taken out 649,999 too
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
>MattW said It is a quite corrupt manoeuvre, however.
>619 said why? giving more people a vote is always a good thing
>Matt W
Are you for real, 619?
The principle of votes for ex-prisoners is a different question from a Governor attempting to manipulate an election in his favoured direction using the power of his elected position.
McAuliffe has been Governor of Virginia for nearly 3 years.
The courts required individual cases to be reviewed. He organised a signing-machine, then he reportedly lied about how many he had done to the tune of reducing the number by 80% in his statements.
If it was a big principle of giving votes to former felons he would have done it in 2014.
He didn't.
It is just another variety of attempted gerrymander.
Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?
It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.
Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!
I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.
Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.
Interesting, how is it entrenched?
Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.
Thanks! So they could amend it if they had consent, or would they need continuing consent after amendment?
It needs 66% support in the Senate AND House to enact a change - and 75% ratification (38 States) before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Since at the moment the Senate is about to split 50-50 this seems unlikely. (There is often a time limit imposed as well, but that is not mandatory).
Could a new state accept less representation?
That would still need an amendment to the Constitution. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 stipulates that each state has two senators. Unless that is modified it applies to any state that becomes part of the USA in the same way it applies to existing states. The process for reducing representation is therefore the same regardless of whether we are dealing with an existing state or a new one.
Trump camp seems increasingly bullish about Michigan.Another poll from Trafalgar conducted yesterday in Michigan is: Trump 48.5% Clinton 46.8
I'm still puzzled by the Trafalgar poll purporting to show a Shy Trump effect. It showed more people thinking their neighbour was going Trump than saying they were voting Trump which seems like a "loud Trump" effect to me.
The idea is it depersonalizes the question. If I ask you directly who you will vote for you might give me the socially acceptable response if you are socially sensitive, rather than your true feeling. If I ask you about your neighbour it allows you to project your feelings while not triggering the subconcious need to please.
I've got a good friend who is supporting Donald Trump.
You'd be off my Xmas card list Pulps....sorry...I've got 2 brothers...both went for Brexit, and now both are gunning for Trump. One can vote....and is heavily involved in this campaign...I can't say anything else I'm afraid.
Anyway the sooner I can get my mum's estate sorted, the sooner I can start saying I have two ex brothers.....
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
>MattW said It is a quite corrupt manoeuvre, however.
>619 said why? giving more people a vote is always a good thing
>Matt W
Are you for real, 619?
The principle of votes for ex-prisoners is a different question from a Governor attempting to manipulate an election in his favoured direction using the power of his elected position.
McAuliffe has been Governor of Virginia for nearly 3 years.
The courts required individual cases to be reviewed. He organised a signing-machine, then he reportedly lied about how many he had done to the tune of reducing the number by 80% in his statements.
If it was a big principle of giving votes to former felons he would have done it in 2014.
He didn't.
It is just another variety of attempted gerrymander.
But that is the US Electoral System for you.
On the bright side, it means Hillary may get a vote in the 2020 election of her successor's successor........
It's almost as if they had the resources of the FBI at their disposal.
Incidentally as part of my job I have reviewed 2,000 emails in a day before... (no overtime)
I am guessing they easily managed to discard 600k of them as they were titled things such as "dirty young sluts"...
I just wish the ones in my job were :P
They were someone else's emails? So presumably step one is to run a search on "Clinton" and "Hillary" to focus in on those sent to or from her or that mention her. That might well have narrowed the task down considerably.
And possibly taking anything out with the word porn...that might have taken out 649,999 too
According to Wired, dead easy: One former FBI forensics expert even tells WIRED he’s personally assessed far larger collections of data, far faster. “You can triage a dataset like this in a much shorter amount of time,” says the former agent, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid any political backlash. “We’d routinely collect terabytes of data in a search. I’d know what was important before I left the guy’s house.”
Comments
It was exit polls, Rubio's lead among first generation immigrant single mothers in the countryside that time.
83,594 in-person early votes in Franklin County, up 22% from '12 with 1 week less voting.
There were a number of ACW battles in each.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_battles
Betfair is going to settle on Killary or Trumpton...
Trump might just be a great President ... but there's a far larger chance that he would be catastrophically bad.
With my cynical black sense of humour the howls of guardianistas on the event of a Trump win would amuse me. But it would be only a silver lining against a black cloud (not least because my investments would be many thousands lower).
(Rhode Island is the sort of place that has a county, Washington, that no-one ever calls by its real name; it's universally called "South County" by the locals.)
Narrowly it does via Betfair (A narrow victory please though)
Also it will send the US$ down, and mean that my pension autobuys more US stocks cheaply so that when the inevitable Kennedy victory comes around in 2020 or 2024 the rebound will be stronger.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
But it will be a damn close run thing, as Wellington once said.
"Some Texan military units fought in the Civil War east of the Mississippi River, but Texas was most useful for supplying soldiers and horses for Confederate forces. Texas' supply role lasted until mid-1863, after which time Union gunboats controlled the Mississippi River, making large transfers of men, horses or cattle impossible. Some cotton was sold in Mexico, but most of the crop became useless because of the Union naval blockade of Galveston, Houston, and other ports."
Which I didn't know.
Over the past week I've come round to the view that we have to see Brexit through, and stopping it is not an option. I think that, if we fudge it through and stay in the EU ie associate membership, EFTA, out of the EU in name only etc, the forces that led to the Brexit vote will not be satisfied and we will end up with some kind of massive populist revolt. There is no evidence that peoples minds are changing, not even now the Scottish and Irish position is becoming clearer.
Its better to accept the decision and face the consequences. I think it will be painful, far more than £4300 per week painful, but if we are a democracy, we have to face the truth, because there is no 'going back' option. We can't turn the clock back six months, six years or a decade. We can't go back.
The people - the idiots - voted to trigger article 50 on June 24th. They have to live with the consequences of their decision. It was inconceivably stupid of Cameron to allow us to get in to this position, but he ultimately put his own political career ahead of the stability of the UK as an entity. He has to live with his decision, as we all do.
68% No 2 AV
32% Yes 2 AV
The Labour Leave movement probably had a strong crossover with Labour's NOtoAV supporters - who were also very effective.
Until something better comes along with the Labour Party.....my support is with Theresa May
Polls continue to tighten, generally in Trump's favour....
A small systematic error, and Trump is the 45th President. I believe the chance of such error is high.
INTERESTING FACT: you have to go back to 1904 to find a swing in favour of a two-term (or more) incumbent party, and that was under a sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. The median swing against is about 5%, the lowest 1.2% in 1944, against FDR. The lowest swing against the incumbent party in an open election was 3.9% in 1928. Clinton is no FDR or Bull Moose, so perhaps the polls are wrong...
That's what it did last time.
"As Florida was an important supply route for the Confederate army, Union forces operated a blockade around the entire state. Union troops occupied major ports such as Cedar Key, Jacksonville, Key West, and Pensacola early in the war. Confederate forces moved quickly to seize control of many of Florida's U.S. Army forts, succeeding in most cases, with the significant exceptions of Fort Jefferson, Fort Pickens and Fort Zachary Taylor, which stayed firmly in Federal control throughout the war.
Governor John Milton, an ardent secessionist, throughout the war stressed the importance of Florida as a supplier of goods, rather than personnel. Florida was a large provider of food (particularly beef cattle) and salt for the Confederate Army. The 8,436-mile coastline and 11,000 miles of rivers, streams, and waterways proved a haven for blockade runners and a daunting task for patrols by Federal warships. However, the state's small population (140,000 residents making it last in size in the Confederacy), relatively remote location, and meager industry limited its overall strategic importance."
Likewise the 1936 and 1984 victories were so huge that even strong swings in 1940 and 1988 still allowed comfortable wins.
https://twitter.com/Messina2012/status/795753681924734976
The realpolitik of the situation suggests if it was the clear will of the peoples of a US state to secede, then a political solution would have to be reached. You'd get a fair share of naysayers and constitutional purists griping, but something would be done. If the UK had voted for Brexit in the absence of an Article 50 provision, an arrangement would have been reached (it would just have taken more time and headaches).
Also worth pointing out that the main issue surrounding secession in 1861 was very morally objectionable compared to what the justification would probably be nowadays.
Of course, this is all a bit of a moot point as there are no serious proposals for such a move.
Trump 48.5%
Clinton 46.8
I think that's right, and not different from what we've been saying on here.
And into the next day....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
Whoever wins Penn wins overall.
Rod is giving Ohio and Iowa as Trump flips and none in return.
He is also giving Poland,. France Holland, Belgium, Norway.....to Hitler.....
It should be a Clinton win. And yet... and yet...
Incidentally as part of my job I have reviewed 2,000 emails in a day before... (no overtime)
He was very good on the 1992 election program.
Constitutionally, the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that states can't secede:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
In theory, there's nothing in the US constitution to stop today's Supreme Court overruling that decision, but that's never going to happen.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/ZZWgQ
Revenge of the Florida chads.
Go to sleep around 2pm, wake up at 8pm, then stay up until we have a definitive result
http://votecastr.us/
@619
>Platosaid said:
Daily Caller
EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Gov. Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election https://t.co/RzJ2g94a2T https://t.co/akLelsQkC9
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them...
Good on him. The permanent removal of the vote from people convicted of a crime yet served their sentence in many American states is a disgrace of international proportions.
>MattW said
It is a quite corrupt manoeuvre, however.
>619 said
why? giving more people a vote is always a good thing
>Matt W
Are you for real, 619?
The principle of votes for ex-prisoners is a different question from a Governor attempting to manipulate an election in his favoured direction using the power of his elected position.
McAuliffe has been Governor of Virginia for nearly 3 years.
The courts required individual cases to be reviewed. He organised a signing-machine, then he reportedly lied about how many he had done to the tune of reducing the number by 80% in his statements.
If it was a big principle of giving votes to former felons he would have done it in 2014.
He didn't.
It is just another variety of attempted gerrymander.
But that is the US Electoral System for you.
Anyway the sooner I can get my mum's estate sorted, the sooner I can start saying I have two ex brothers.....
https://twitter.com/Bonn1eGreer/status/795741385601257472
One former FBI forensics expert even tells WIRED he’s personally assessed far larger collections of data, far faster. “You can triage a dataset like this in a much shorter amount of time,” says the former agent, who asked to remain anonymous to avoid any political backlash. “We’d routinely collect terabytes of data in a search. I’d know what was important before I left the guy’s house.”