Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
Probably got a higher chance of getting some post-Brexit scraps. But our strategic position it looking more than a bit shaky in terms of global security. We could once again be on the European front line as Trump gives up on central/eastern Europe and plays cozy with Putin.
The EU has taken a giant step towards a common army this morning.
Congratulations to all that called this correctly. I think the West is now in real trouble.
Indeed. And contrition from those who dismissed the possibility too readily.
I still find it extraordinary that someone with such appalling ratings could win an election like this. True, Hillary's are far from healthy (in fact, they're the second-worst ever recorded for a presidential candidate), but they were still well ahead of Trump. All I can think is either (1) the pollsters screwed up, or (2) we paid insufficient attention to those who disapproved of both candidates, who must have broken clearly for Trump. After all, it's not just whether a voter's opinion of a candidate is plus or minus zero but it's *how much* it is so relative to the others on the ballot that counts.
Just as people switched late to the Tories in 2015 because they feared the poll prediction of a Miliband minority PM, I am sure that Clinton's projected win probably made some people switch late to Trump. as they also switched to Brexit to reduce the projected Remain win.
I don't follow the logic there (apart from UK2015GE, but my experience in that is that opinion was fairly firm at least a week out). It makes more sense to simply think that the polls were methodologically wrong.
Congratulations to all that called this correctly. I think the West is now in real trouble.
Indeed. And contrition from those who dismissed the possibility too readily.
I still find it extraordinary that someone with such appalling ratings could win an election like this. True, Hillary's are far from healthy (in fact, they're the second-worst ever recorded for a presidential candidate), but they were still well ahead of Trump. All I can think is either (1) the pollsters screwed up, or (2) we paid insufficient attention to those who disapproved of both candidates, who must have broken clearly for Trump. After all, it's not just whether a voter's opinion of a candidate is plus or minus zero but it's *how much* it is so relative to the others on the ballot that counts.
Just as people switched late to the Tories in 2015 because they feared the poll prediction of a Miliband minority PM, I am sure that Clinton's projected win probably made some people switch late to Trump. as they also switched to Brexit to reduce the projected Remain win.
I don't follow the logic there (apart from UK2015GE, but my experience in that is that opinion was fairly firm at least a week out). It makes more sense to simply think that the polls were methodologically wrong.
I am not saying they weren't - but there is also anecdotal evidence at least, that people look at the projected result and if they don't like it some will change their vote accordingly.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
The question is Trump's foreign policy, and whether it will ease tensions in hotspots around the world. It's useless being friendly with the US if eastern Europe is aflame.
Russia is not going to screw up the chance to negotiate a new settlement as an equal with the US by doing anything stupid now.
Also remember that Trump's first wife was from the Czech Republic and third is from Slovenia. He's not going to be completely blind to the concerns of eastern Europe.
Putin's interested in power. As has been seen in the past. he'll do whatever he can to shore his polling numbers up when they start to slip.
Also: Russia isn't an equal to the US. China may be soon. But Russia isn't. The only way it is a superpower is in nukes and, whilst that's important, it isn't the whole story.
As an example: the Russian space agency has settled for the same amount of money over the next ten years as NASA gets in just one. And some of that is coming from the US in the form of payments for Soyuz seats.
That's another question: will Trump lift sanctions against Russia?
The BBC now reduced to suggesting Trump might suddenly become more responsible now that he has the job. A prediction that has been made and disproved at several earlier stages, sadly.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
First foreign visit to Theresa and No 10.
He is just going to love that and can you just imagine Alex Salmond's face
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
First foreign visit to Theresa and No 10.
He is just going to love that and can you just imagine Alex Salmond's face
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
He's buddies with Farage, Boris and Salmond and hostile to the EU.
He will probably be good with us.
Salmond and Trump have had a *massive* falling out.
And that is where it has ended for Hillary. If she had won MI and WI (and PA, if it flips, but let's put it in her column for now):
- She could have afforded to lose North Carolina - She could have afforded to lose Iowa - She could have afforded to lose New Hampshire - She could have afforded to lose Florida
Heck, she could even have afforded to lose New Mexico if the Nebraska district gives her a vote.
Her campaign has been too focussed on being continuity Obama without focussing on the people in the 'firewall' states that are feeling the pain right now and can't see how they've benefitted under Obama.
CNN suggested just now, and I agree, that the unrelenting focus on celebrity endorsement may have been a big mistake in the closing days. How does that speak to people in the rust belt?
This is textbook on how to throw away an election. The Edstone and the Sheffield rally have nothing on this.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
First foreign visit to Theresa and No 10.
He is just going to love that and can you just imagine Alex Salmond's face
Trump might of won Ohio by a bigger percentage than Texas. The Mid-west has been badly polled, the rest of the country looks like it is pretty close to what was predicted.
Jeremy Vine doing has bar charts. Exit poll returns suggest white men voted 55:36 in favour of Trump.
Suggestion is that Trump has mobilised white male voters as a minority community, just as Obama energised the African-American vote. That's at least a big part of how he won.
Why is this surprising? It was known that Cubans were more likely to trend Trump. Cubans don't equal all Hispanics, let alone all minorities. Anyway, I should get some sleep. This looks done.
Jeremy Vine doing has bar charts. Exit poll returns suggest white men voted 55:36 in favour of Trump.
Suggestion is that Trump has mobilised white male voters as a minority community, just as Obama energised the African-American vote. That's at least a big part of how he won.
Wait till white male voters in America realise that punishing all other demographics isn't going to make their lives any better.
And that is where it has ended for Hillary. If she had won MI and WI (and PA, if it flips, but let's put it in her column for now):
- She could have afforded to lose North Carolina - She could have afforded to lose Iowa - She could have afforded to lose New Hampshire - She could have afforded to lose Florida
Heck, she could even have afforded to lose New Mexico if the Nebraska district gives her a vote.
Her campaign has been too focussed on being continuity Obama without focussing on the people in the 'firewall' states that are feeling the pain right now and can't see how they've benefitted under Obama.
CNN suggested just now, and I agree, that the unrelenting focus on celebrity endorsement may have been a big mistake in the closing days. How does that speak to people in the rust belt?
This is textbook on how to throw away an election. The Edstone and the Sheffield rally have nothing on this.
I wonder how the DNC fools feel about stitching it up for her?
Well done Plato for being one of the very few to challenge the conventional "experts" on PB, in the face of unwise abuse from people who should know better.
From the Telegraph - markets are already going crackers:
Sean Callow, a forex strategist at Westpac in Sydney, says markets "are reacting as though the four horsemen of the apocalypse just rode out of Trump Tower".
"Or at least 3 of them - it might be 4 when the prospect of a clean sweep of Congress sinks in."
US stock futures recoiled more than 4.5 percent, matching the carnage that followed the British vote to leave the European Union in June that wiped trillions of dollars of value off global markets.
Sovereign bonds flew ahead, pushing yields on 10-year US Treasury notes down a huge 13 basis points to 1.74 percent, again the largest drop since Brexit.
Yields had briefly touched a six-month high around 1.8960 percent in early trade.
In commodity markets, gold climbed 3.4 percent to $1,318 an ounce as the dollar slid.
Oil turned tail on concerns over the global economic outlook, with U.S. crude shedding $1.34 to $43.63 a barrel, while Brent fell $1.24 to $44.80.
And Christ, Trump is now being reported as narrowly ahead in Pennsylvania, with 94% of votes counted. This isn't even going to be that close on the ECV.
And that is where it has ended for Hillary. If she had won MI and WI (and PA, if it flips, but let's put it in her column for now):
- She could have afforded to lose North Carolina - She could have afforded to lose Iowa - She could have afforded to lose New Hampshire - She could have afforded to lose Florida
Heck, she could even have afforded to lose New Mexico if the Nebraska district gives her a vote.
Her campaign has been too focussed on being continuity Obama without focussing on the people in the 'firewall' states that are feeling the pain right now and can't see how they've benefitted under Obama.
CNN suggested just now, and I agree, that the unrelenting focus on celebrity endorsement may have been a big mistake in the closing days. How does that speak to people in the rust belt?
This is textbook on how to throw away an election. The Edstone and the Sheffield rally have nothing on this.
I wonder how the DNC fools feel about stitching it up for her?
I wonder how angry the Democratic rank and file feel about it... She'll end her career as a massive hate figure even in her own party.
Your low turnout map is mine exactly but I do not think it is dependent upon low turnout. It is much more dependent on the surge in Hispanic voters that we have seen in some of the early voting coming through on the day. It is this that I think is going to swing NC , FL and AZ. The Hispanics will be the black vote of this election, not because they love Hillary (who does?) but because they hate Trump and he has gone out of his way to really piss them off.
I do not hold that the Hispanic vote will be quite as crucial as is being made out. Firstly it would only make a big difference on my map to Arizona; Based on early voting a good chunk of the increase in Hispanics is only making up for the underperformance in AAs. As much is made of Hispanic's hatred of Trump, even the most pessimistic numbers for him are better than his numbers with blacks. Only Arizona is a close state without the need to offset the AA vote (because the AA vote isn't as big anyway).
My opinion is the clincher will be what the white vote does, particularly white middle-income men, who are more likely to vote on election day.
Trump up by 1k in PA, one Trump friendly district to come in, everything else pretty much declared. I think Trump wins PA, but by the most slender of margins.
Well done Plato for being one of the very few to challenge the conventional "experts" on PB, in the face of unwise abuse from people who should know better.
I haven't followed the election much until now but the comments I have seen to Plato by some on this forum were unacceptable and she is owed many apologies in my opinion
Your low turnout map is mine exactly but I do not think it is dependent upon low turnout. It is much more dependent on the surge in Hispanic voters that we have seen in some of the early voting coming through on the day. It is this that I think is going to swing NC , FL and AZ. The Hispanics will be the black vote of this election, not because they love Hillary (who does?) but because they hate Trump and he has gone out of his way to really piss them off.
I do not hold that the Hispanic vote will be quite as crucial as is being made out. Firstly it would only make a big difference on my map to Arizona; Based on early voting a good chunk of the increase in Hispanics is only making up for the underperformance in AAs. As much is made of Hispanic's hatred of Trump, even the most pessimistic numbers for him are better than his numbers with blacks. Only Arizona is a close state without the need to offset the AA vote (because the AA vote isn't as big anyway).
My opinion is the clincher will be what the white vote does, particularly white middle-income men, who are more likely to vote on election day.
Why is this surprising? It was known that Cubans were more likely to trend Trump. Cubans don't equal all Hispanics, let alone all minorities. Anyway, I should get some sleep. This looks done.
Well done Plato for being one of the very few to challenge the conventional "experts" on PB, in the face of unwise abuse from people who should know better.
I haven't followed the election much until now but the comments I have seen to Plato by some on this forum were unacceptable and she is owed many apologies in my opinion
From the Telegraph - markets are already going crackers:
Sean Callow, a forex strategist at Westpac in Sydney, says markets "are reacting as though the four horsemen of the apocalypse just rode out of Trump Tower".
"Or at least 3 of them - it might be 4 when the prospect of a clean sweep of Congress sinks in."
US stock futures recoiled more than 4.5 percent, matching the carnage that followed the British vote to leave the European Union in June that wiped trillions of dollars of value off global markets.
Sovereign bonds flew ahead, pushing yields on 10-year US Treasury notes down a huge 13 basis points to 1.74 percent, again the largest drop since Brexit.
Yields had briefly touched a six-month high around 1.8960 percent in early trade.
In commodity markets, gold climbed 3.4 percent to $1,318 an ounce as the dollar slid.
Oil turned tail on concerns over the global economic outlook, with U.S. crude shedding $1.34 to $43.63 a barrel, while Brent fell $1.24 to $44.80.
And Christ, Trump is now being reported as narrowly ahead in Pennsylvania, with 94% of votes counted. This isn't even going to be that close on the ECV.
Trump isn't going to be able to stop China overtaking the US as the world's number one economy. His supporters are going to be a bit disappointed by that.
CNN suggested just now, and I agree, that the unrelenting focus on celebrity endorsement may have been a big mistake in the closing days. How does that speak to people in the rust belt?
This is textbook on how to throw away an election. The Edstone and the Sheffield rally have nothing on this.
My dad and I were talking about that the other day. I definitely think celebrity endorsement is a bad thing here, but I wasn't sure about the US. Jay Z and Beyonce are very popular, but do they really make a positive difference with swing voters?
Well done Plato for being one of the very few to challenge the conventional "experts" on PB, in the face of unwise abuse from people who should know better.
I haven't followed the election much until now but the comments I have seen to Plato by some on this forum were unacceptable and she is owed many apologies in my opinion
She also owes many apologies ...
I didn't buy Plato's analysis, but I did defend her right to share the views with us. We don't do ourselves any favours trying to exclude any point of view, except for the libellous or offensive.
Gaby Hinsliff @gabyhinsliff I'm normally a glass half full, every cloud a silver lining person, but I've got nothing for this. Except that Brexit now looks small beer
Your low turnout map is mine exactly but I do not think it is dependent upon low turnout. It is much more dependent on the surge in Hispanic voters that we have seen in some of the early voting coming through on the day. It is this that I think is going to swing NC , FL and AZ. The Hispanics will be the black vote of this election, not because they love Hillary (who does?) but because they hate Trump and he has gone out of his way to really piss them off.
I do not hold that the Hispanic vote will be quite as crucial as is being made out. Firstly it would only make a big difference on my map to Arizona; Based on early voting a good chunk of the increase in Hispanics is only making up for the underperformance in AAs. As much is made of Hispanic's hatred of Trump, even the most pessimistic numbers for him are better than his numbers with blacks. Only Arizona is a close state without the need to offset the AA vote (because the AA vote isn't as big anyway).
My opinion is the clincher will be what the white vote does, particularly white middle-income men, who are more likely to vote on election day.
Trump isn't going to be able to stop China overtaking the US as the world's number one economy. His supporters are going to be a bit disappointed by that.
Just like Brexit, it's the potential disillusion that is so dangerous.
Your low turnout map is mine exactly but I do not think it is dependent upon low turnout. It is much more dependent on the surge in Hispanic voters that we have seen in some of the early voting coming through on the day. It is this that I think is going to swing NC , FL and AZ. The Hispanics will be the black vote of this election, not because they love Hillary (who does?) but because they hate Trump and he has gone out of his way to really piss them off.
I do not hold that the Hispanic vote will be quite as crucial as is being made out. Firstly it would only make a big difference on my map to Arizona; Based on early voting a good chunk of the increase in Hispanics is only making up for the underperformance in AAs. As much is made of Hispanic's hatred of Trump, even the most pessimistic numbers for him are better than his numbers with blacks. Only Arizona is a close state without the need to offset the AA vote (because the AA vote isn't as big anyway).
My opinion is the clincher will be what the white vote does, particularly white middle-income men, who are more likely to vote on election day.
Comments
The EU has taken a giant step towards a common army this morning.
I think Trump's going to take it
That will be reversed.
So I'm guessing she gets 3 million votes from California.
Also: Russia isn't an equal to the US. China may be soon. But Russia isn't. The only way it is a superpower is in nukes and, whilst that's important, it isn't the whole story.
As an example: the Russian space agency has settled for the same amount of money over the next ten years as NASA gets in just one. And some of that is coming from the US in the form of payments for Soyuz seats.
That's another question: will Trump lift sanctions against Russia?
Do we have some idea of the likely overall turnout percentage?
https://twitter.com/skysarahjane/status/796214635632398336
Well, if we all live that long.
He is just going to love that and can you just imagine Alex Salmond's face
So much for the Hispanic vote.
- She could have afforded to lose North Carolina
- She could have afforded to lose Iowa
- She could have afforded to lose New Hampshire
- She could have afforded to lose Florida
Heck, she could even have afforded to lose New Mexico if the Nebraska district gives her a vote.
Her campaign has been too focussed on being continuity Obama without focussing on the people in the 'firewall' states that are feeling the pain right now and can't see how they've benefitted under Obama.
CNN suggested just now, and I agree, that the unrelenting focus on celebrity endorsement may have been a big mistake in the closing days. How does that speak to people in the rust belt?
This is textbook on how to throw away an election. The Edstone and the Sheffield rally have nothing on this.
So much for minorities against Populism.
'It really is like covering a wake' @zdaniel describe the mood at the #Clinton headquarters in Newyork #usavotes https://t.co/qTKiJfWRKG
The Mid-west has been badly polled, the rest of the country looks like it is pretty close to what was predicted.
Suggestion is that Trump has mobilised white male voters as a minority community, just as Obama energised the African-American vote. That's at least a big part of how he won.
The solution is simple, take the poll predictions, subtract 10 from the respectable candidates and add 10 to the unacceptable ones.
Whites now behave like a minority.
(Which should be next month, with luck. Hopefully they've stopped their rockets from spontaneously combusting. It's solid oxygen wot dun it).
Or maybe I did. I forget.
Anyway, I remember us discussing how efficient trump's vote was a week or so ago. So a narrow EC win shouldn't have been that surprising.
Although I am still quite surprised.
Of course they knew.
Why didn't the Public Opinion Pollsters publish those numbers?
Sean Callow, a forex strategist at Westpac in Sydney, says markets "are reacting as though the four horsemen of the apocalypse just rode out of Trump Tower".
"Or at least 3 of them - it might be 4 when the prospect of a clean sweep of Congress sinks in."
US stock futures recoiled more than 4.5 percent, matching the carnage that followed the British vote to leave the European Union in June that wiped trillions of dollars of value off global markets.
Sovereign bonds flew ahead, pushing yields on 10-year US Treasury notes down a huge 13 basis points to 1.74 percent, again the largest drop since Brexit.
Yields had briefly touched a six-month high around 1.8960 percent in early trade.
In commodity markets, gold climbed 3.4 percent to $1,318 an ounce as the dollar slid.
Oil turned tail on concerns over the global economic outlook, with U.S. crude shedding $1.34 to $43.63 a barrel, while Brent fell $1.24 to $44.80.
And Christ, Trump is now being reported as narrowly ahead in Pennsylvania, with 94% of votes counted. This isn't even going to be that close on the ECV.
.@CeciliaVegaABC: Top Clinton donor says, "Done. Over. He is the president." https://t.co/dcOvqMGQM0 #Election2016 https://t.co/1tNNUKhb9z
Plato moves from POTY to LOTY. (Lord of PB and takes PB ermine)
If?
I'm normally a glass half full, every cloud a silver lining person, but I've got nothing for this. Except that Brexit now looks small beer
The median income in Ohio is down $10,000.
If you lost that much money would you have voted to upend the establishment?