PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Your last points are strawman arguments. Nowhere have I said social media is representative.
Also, I'd say extreme anti-establishment candidates are in the ascendency as opposed to purely right wing candidates. The isolationist economic policies of Trump and Le Pen are hardly 'right wing'.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Your last points are strawman arguments. Nowhere have I said social media is representative.
Also, I'd say extreme anti-establishment candidates are in the ascendency as opposed to purely right wing candidates. The isolationist economic policies of Trump and Le Pen are hardly 'right wing'.
White women also voted overwhelmingly for Trump – 53% to Hillary’s 43%. Despite all of his comments he actually did better than Romney with women and minorities.
Quite incredible. 50 Shades of Grey eat your heart out...
I have a theory that the polling is bad when pollsters do not believe their own numbers due to their personal bias, plus they can't get turnout right.
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right. Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
The two are mutually exclusive. More fracking drops the gas price, power generators use gas instead of coal and coal demand plummets.
He even did it in the same speech, basically one sentence after the other. Trump doesn't have a coherent policy platform.
I've been downstairs cooking (oh, the horrors of gender essentialism!) but a few thoughts arose as I was doing so (*) that might be worth sharing. Apologies if these have been mentioned below:
*) As much as anything else, Clinton oozed a sense of entitlement: something I sadly did not fully capture earlier. 2008 was *her* presidency. 2016 was *definitively* her presidency. This belief in her rights led her to a disastrous loss. A change of tone alone - of positivity - might have swung it.
*) The much-derided comparisons with Brexit were valid, at least in one way. The liberal (**) Democrats have lost touch with those whom they have left behind. Like what I prefer to call the 'High Church' of the EU, they have come to think of the rightness of their project is enough. They do not need to sell it to those that do not see immediate advantage from it.
*) Urrrm, I cannot remember the next one ... Oh, that was it: nope, it's gone. Bu**er. Edit 2: expect more mass-media 'stars' to move into politics. They are somewhat immune to the usual complaints because they are not part of the system (despite being part of an equally fraudulent and biased system (***)
(*) IME uninterrupted cooking is, aside from long-distance walking, the best place to think. Unlike long-distance walking, it has the advantage of Internet access readily available afterwards.
(**) I would like to think of myself as socially liberal, if not necessarily subject to this specific disease.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
Obamacare repeal first up, surely.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
Question is what is the bigly idea to replace it? There is a genuine problem with US healthcare system and not just among non-insured poor people.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
Your last points are strawman arguments. Nowhere have I said social media is representative.
Also, I'd say extreme anti-establishment candidates are in the ascendency as opposed to purely right wing candidates. The isolationist economic policies of Trump and Le Pen are hardly 'right wing'.
Corn laws. Tories. Whigs. Peelites. Whigs + Peelites (+ Radicals) -> Liberal Party. Wikipedia. What was the political affiliation of Richard Cobden? What is the political affiliation of the think-tank The Cobden Centre? Here be nuances, methinks.
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with others who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
White women also voted overwhelmingly for Trump – 53% to Hillary’s 43%. Despite all of his comments he actually did better than Romney with women and minorities.
Quite incredible. 50 Shades of Grey eat your heart out...
National Populism seems popular with all categories.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
But the right is in the ascendancy globally and the left is in retreat everywhere. In France the race is going to be the centre right vs the far right, in socialist France of all places.
My point is thay the PB consensus gets the feel for the real world a lot better than social media. We got the consensus of Merkel's error much quicker than anywhere else I know, an error that is going to mean a far right party in Germany will get up to 20% and be the largest non governmental party in the Bundestag.
You may not like the PB consensus but it's more right than wrong and that's because it's more representative of the voting public than a narrow social media group or following a few caricature accounts on twatter who are "tory scummers".
I think Left/Right is a very difficult spectrum. Trump is promising fiscal largess and protectionism (left wing) and deregulation (right wing).
He's promising to defend coal and expand natural gas fracking.
Those two are incompatible, as natural gas displaces coal!
(*) IME uninterrupted cooking is, aside from long-distance walking, the best place to think. Unlike long-distance walking, it has the advantage of Internet access readily available afterwards.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
Obamacare repeal first up, surely.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
Question is what is the bigly idea to replace it? There is a genuine problem with US healthcare system and not just among non-insured poor people.
TRUMP Care !
Lets hope it is better than Trump University...Trump Steaks....Trump Airlines....Trump ....
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
I have a theory that the polling is bad when pollsters do not believe their own numbers due to their personal bias, plus they can't get turnout right.
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right. Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
Were LAT, IBP/TIPP right?
They predicted the right winner but did so based on Trump winning the national share of the vote by +3 in LA Times case. That's probably going to fall outside the margin of error.
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's like saying Australia is a country literally founded on criminality. It's over a century and a half since the Emancipation Proclamation.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
I have a theory that the polling is bad when pollsters do not believe their own numbers due to their personal bias, plus they can't get turnout right.
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right. Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
Were LAT, IBP/TIPP right?
They predicted the right winner but did so based on Trump winning the national share of the vote by +3 in LA Times case. That's probably going to fall outside the margin of error.
Pretty much all the national polls predicted the "right winner" in terms of a national poll. Wasn't Trump.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
(*) IME uninterrupted cooking is, aside from long-distance walking, the best place to think. Unlike long-distance walking, it has the advantage of Internet access readily available afterwards.
1. Ironing 2. Mowing the lawn 3. Shaving
1) Mrs J does not let me do the ironing. She has certain blackened items to back up her view. But she doesn't do it either ...
2) Our lawn is tiny. And besides, being a city girl, she rarely ventures into the garden.
3) I rarely shave. See my profile pic for a modest example.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's your opinion. You don't seem to have quite grasped the point that others might have a different opinion. In fact you don't seem to want to grasp the point, or express any curiosity as to why they might think differently to you. That is a pity.
The resources companies are certainly leading the recovery. And the pharma sector is doing well today; it doesn't take too much effort to join the dots there.
I guess the Americans are anticipating a business-friendly administration.
Nevertheless I remain sceptical as to how much infrastructure Trump will be able to deliver (he is a bit like Boris in probably preferring something big and glamorous with his name on it, to mundane but useful staff like classrooms and filling potholes), and my instinct is that there isn't much more upside in the markets, particularly in the U.K., other than any further currency-driven rise in £ value of foreign assets and earnings.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
The fact that you don't see Blair as the most extreme left wing election winner in the last 35 years says more about you than me. Who has won an election victory that was more extreme left wing than him?
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
It might be a little more centre-right than the country as a whole, but not hugely so. I believe that when Mike has done on-line polls here where people say which party they support, the results have been broadly in line with national figures.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
On your first point (from a previous post):
PB's voting intentions are representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative.
Also, I've never commented on the intelligence of Trump and Le Pen supporters, so your assumption there is wrong.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
Apocalypse.....don't waste your breath with the ideologues here....This is predominantly a right wing site and you will get shouted down.
Of course it's fine to question the values of people who support Trump who is a proto facist, psychotic, racist, misogynist who's supported by the likes of the KKK, neo Nazis, the EDL, Putin.... etc........Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
And his admirers on pbCOM are really the pond life dwellers on this site.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's like saying Australia si a country literally founded on criminality.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
The difference is, is that the issue of racism within America is still very much relevant today.
Criminality within that particular context is not really relevant to modern day Australia.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
The fact that you don't see Blair as the most extreme left wing election winner in the last 35 years says more about you than me. Who has won an election victory that was more extreme left wing than him?
Do you really think most British people see Blair as extreme left-wing? If he was extreme left-wing, he wouldn't have won three GEs in this country!
Also I'm not quite understanding how you've decided Blair is extreme left-wing on the account that no else more left wing than him has won a GE. If anything, that shows Blair isn't extreme left wing.
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's like saying Australia is a country literally founded on criminality. It's over a century and a half since the Emancipation Proclamation.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
Actually, there are two Australias: the foreign one of Home and Away and Neighbours; and the conservative one that you see when you venture outside the cities and tourist areas. In many ways, Australia is more conservative than the US.
I wouldn't say the views on PB are necessarily more balanced. Just as social media tends to be pretty left-wing, this site is pretty right-wing, even to the point where they are quite an array of Trump backers, and even sympathisers of Le Pen which I've seen here. The British public as a whole aren't that right-wing.
It might be a little more centre-right than the country as a whole, but not hugely so. I believe that when Mike has done on-line polls here where people say which party they support, the results have been broadly in line with national figures.
Clearly, it is beyond your comprehension that anyone decent and intelligent could be a Trump or Le Pen backer (even though the alternatives in both cases are not exactly compelling). You should stick around, you might learn a bit more tolerance and understanding of viewpoints which clearly you don't often get exposed to.
On your first point (from a previous post):
PB's voting intentions are representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative.
Also, I've never commented on the intelligence of Trump and Le Pen supporters, so your assumption there is wrong.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
Apocalypse.....don't waste your breath with the ideologues here....This is predominantly a right wing site and you will get shouted down.
Of course it's fine to question the values of people who support Trump who is a proto facist, psychotic, racist, misogynist who's supported by the likes of the KKK, neo Nazis, the EDL, Putin.... etc........Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
And his admirers on pbCOM are really the pond life dwellers on this site.
Anyhow, this site is at its best when we try and analyse, debate and predict - as best we can and from all perspectives. The effort a few posters make to try and 'persuade' or sell their politics always seems rather pointless, since I doubt there are many floating voters here (or at least not ones without views of their own).
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's your opinion. You don't seem to have quite grasped the point that others might have a different opinion. In fact you don't seem to want to grasp the point, or express any curiosity as to why they might think differently to you. That is a pity.
I definitely know others have a different opinion - I just don't agree with their views.
Two more townships in on New Hampshire, and gluttons for punishment are continuing to lay the Dems. The problem is that there is literally nothing left that could give Trump victory.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's like saying Australia si a country literally founded on criminality.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
The difference is, is that the issue of racism within America is still very much relevant today.
Criminality within that particular context is not really relevant to modern day Australia.
Yep, the whole bloody election was about how different racial groups were voting.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
I was seriously worried about the spreads when Virginia looked likely to fall at one point.
I think that many people lost tons of money on the Spreads, but some lucky enough who caught the Trump wave after Tampa and Virginia made fortunes.
The Spreads though are very dangerous for the average bettor.
Yeah, I lost a packet on the spreads, largely because I was too slow to close off. In fact I even compounded the error when there was comment here that Florida was going well for Hillary - I should have listened more to you!
I did manage to yank my position on BF over far enough to end up OK. Depending on how the last bets come in, I might be in a small profit or a manageable loss. Oh well.
Two more townships in on New Hampshire, and gluttons for punishment are continuing to lay the Dems. The problem is that there is literally nothing left that could give Trump victory.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
Zero chance.
Oh like who cares now, Trump won by more than 300 EV, 4 more or less doesn't make a difference.
Thank God that the result is decisive and not dependent upon recounts.
Actually, there are two Australias: the foreign one of Home and Away and Neighbours; and the conservative one that you see when you venture outside the cities and tourist areas. In many ways, Australia is more conservative than the US.
Perhaps the personal insult driven political culture of Australia was a precursor to Trump. The Aussiefication of the Anglosphere.
.However I don't think it's unreasonable to question the decency of someone who actively supports a candidate like Trump, who has been openly racist and misogynistic. I think tolerance only goes so far in that regard and it makes me think of what kind of views does that person really have if they're so keen for the Trumps, and Le Pens of this world to get into power. .
You should reflect on the fact that 60 million Americans just voted for Trump. You can't write off that number of people as not being 'decent'. Perhaps they thought that it was unacceptable to vote for an alternative candidate who, as they saw it, was openly mired in sleaze, dishonest, had clearly broken the law, and was in hock to powerful financial vested interests. That's a perfectly reasonable view, and it is to be celebrated that here on PB you can have a civilised discussion with people who are sympathetic to it, as well as with other who are absolutely horrified by Trump.
America is country literally founded on racism.
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
That's like saying Australia is a country literally founded on criminality. It's over a century and a half since the Emancipation Proclamation.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
Actually, there are two Australias: the foreign one of Home and Away and Neighbours; and the conservative one that you see when you venture outside the cities and tourist areas. In many ways, Australia is more conservative than the US.
And I remember reading some analysis a while back that the proportion of Australians descended from convicts is much less than sometimes thought - although a significant proportion of the early emigrants were convicts, their opportunity to reproduce was limited, particularly for the men, and their health typically poor and survival rates low. And they were followed by many more free (or semi-free) if poor settlers in later years.
Two more townships in on New Hampshire, and gluttons for punishment are continuing to lay the Dems. The problem is that there is literally nothing left that could give Trump victory.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
Zero chance.
Oh like who cares now, Trump won by more than 300 EV, 4 more or less doesn't make a difference.
Thank God that the result is decisive and not dependent upon recounts.
People who have bets on individual states, specific EV values?
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
I can't see it - Thatcher when she was first elected, or Cameron, might beat him. But that's the problem: left and right is not only a silly measure in some ways; it is a reaction to the times. Thatcher was against Callaghan and then Foot. Blair was against Major. Cameron was against Brown. That is who we measure them against, not modern standards. Or indeed the standards of each other.
I was seriously worried about the spreads when Virginia looked likely to fall at one point.
I think that many people lost tons of money on the Spreads, but some lucky enough who caught the Trump wave after Tampa and Virginia made fortunes.
The Spreads though are very dangerous for the average bettor.
Yeah, I lost a packet on the spreads, largely because I was too slow to close off. In fact I even compounded the error when there was comment here that Florida was going well for Hillary - I should have listened more to you!
I did manage to yank my position on BF over far enough to end up OK. Depending on how the last bets come in, I might be in a small profit or a manageable loss. Oh well.
Glad to hear it isn't a betting disaster of titanic proportions!
I have a theory that the polling is bad when pollsters do not believe their own numbers due to their personal bias, plus they can't get turnout right.
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right. Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
Were LAT, IBP/TIPP right?
They predicted the right winner but did so based on Trump winning the national share of the vote by +3 in LA Times case. That's probably going to fall outside the margin of error.
Pretty much all the national polls predicted the "right winner" in terms of a national poll. Wasn't Trump.
Though the polls excluding LAT, IBP/TTIP predicted between +3% to +6%
Had Clinton won the popular vote by 3% or above then she'd be the 45th President.
Two more townships in on New Hampshire, and gluttons for punishment are continuing to lay the Dems. The problem is that there is literally nothing left that could give Trump victory.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
Zero chance.
Oh like who cares now, Trump won by more than 300 EV, 4 more or less doesn't make a difference.
Thank God that the result is decisive and not dependent upon recounts.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
I would say Blair was hardly a social democrat let alone a socialist. If he hadn't been the leader of the Labour Party, I would put him down as a purged-by-Thatcher-Wet Tory.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
Correct
We we will therefore file him under total lying twat....
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
I have a theory that the polling is bad when pollsters do not believe their own numbers due to their personal bias, plus they can't get turnout right.
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right. Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
Were LAT, IBP/TIPP right?
They predicted the right winner but did so based on Trump winning the national share of the vote by +3 in LA Times case. That's probably going to fall outside the margin of error.
Pretty much all the national polls predicted the "right winner" in terms of a national poll. Wasn't Trump.
Though the polls excluding LAT, IBP/TTIP predicted between +3% to +6%
Had Clinton won the popular vote by 3% or above then she'd be the 45th President.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
Since 1976, no Labour politician other than Tony Blair has won an election. He's on the left by default. But all of the failed attempts are left of him: Callaghan (1979) by a little, Foot (1983) by more, Kinnock (1987, 1992) by a little, Brown (2010) and Ed Miliband (2015) also a little.
Two more townships in on New Hampshire, and gluttons for punishment are continuing to lay the Dems. The problem is that there is literally nothing left that could give Trump victory.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
Zero chance.
Thankyou @dogbasket for the tip it rescued my betting day.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
It takes a lot of courage to vote for someone you think is wrong, but powerless. I could never personally.
I was seriously worried about the spreads when Virginia looked likely to fall at one point.
I think that many people lost tons of money on the Spreads, but some lucky enough who caught the Trump wave after Tampa and Virginia made fortunes.
The Spreads though are very dangerous for the average bettor.
Yeah, I lost a packet on the spreads, largely because I was too slow to close off. In fact I even compounded the error when there was comment here that Florida was going well for Hillary - I should have listened more to you!
I did manage to yank my position on BF over far enough to end up OK. Depending on how the last bets come in, I might be in a small profit or a manageable loss. Oh well.
And you know what, I was banned until the very last moment, the irony of timing.
People should not thank me for making the right call early, they should thank those who by popular demand unbanned me.
One thing about Trump is that he owes favours to NO-ONE. He won despite the GOP hierarchy. He can tell Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan what to do and they will do it.
Glad to hear it isn't a betting disaster of titanic proportions!
No, but it was a painful all the same because I should have handled it better.
I think effectively backing Hillary 250+ for 12 points profit, losses thereafter was a decent spread bet - and I'd make the same again in combination with a pro-Trump book if I was at that point de novo every time.
My spreads have lost me a touch, but they were a good pair of bets.
One thing about Trump is that he owes favours to NO-ONE. He won despite the GOP hierarchy. He can tell Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan what to do and they will do it.
Oh, he's a big-league businessman. He'll owe many, many favours, and have many friendships. If anything they'll be *less* open.
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
One thing about Trump is that he owes favours to NO-ONE. He won despite the GOP hierarchy. He can tell Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan what to do and they will do it.
That is the most important thing.
Trump is de-facto the first independent President. It could have been Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan in 1992, one had the money the other the charisma but only Trump had both.
One of the most interesting things for me was how genuinely elated Paul Ryan was at the result. There is going to be good will there to strike a deal with Trump on policy.
Even Republicans who dislike Trump are likely to be licking their lips at the prospect of doing things with so much of the government under their control.
Obamacare repeal first up, surely.
Trump wants it, the GOP want it, the base wants it.
Question is what is the bigly idea to replace it? There is a genuine problem with US healthcare system and not just among non-insured poor people.
An American FHS? After all they can see how well the UK one works and how cheap it is.
What happens now to Trump's business interests? Is there a process for avoiding conflicts of interests (as we have in the UK), or is it up to him to do what he likes?
What is Brexit 3, as far betting markets are concerned? Marine Le Pen in the presidential election in France next May? The AfD in the parliamentary election in Germany next autumn? Or will those markets only be small? Referendums on Frexit or Dexit don't seem just around the corner.
The German elections, Merkel replaced as Chancellor after 12 years in power, that is the most possible Brexit 3.
The other possibility is the 5 Star Movement becoming the government in Italy.
Orford and Surry in NH now in, both very small. Votes remaining, 1471, size of Clinton lead: 1365. Both remaining towns essentially 50/50 Dem/GOP with current voteshares.
What happens now to Trump's business interests? Is there a process for avoiding conflicts of interests (as we have in the UK), or is it up to him to do what he likes?
He said they would follow convention and put them into a blind trust, except he / his son didn't quite get the blind trust thingy....his son is going to run his businesses, but 100% not tell his dad anything.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Arranged from left to right Blair is not extreme left. Relatively more left-wing than other PMs, yes. But that doesn't equal extreme left.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
"the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible"
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
What happens now to Trump's business interests? Is there a process for avoiding conflicts of interests (as we have in the UK), or is it up to him to do what he likes?
Apparently it's up to him. The usual arrangements for people appointed to the executive don't apply to someone elected President.
I'd expect him to hand over control of his business interests to Ivanka.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
Since 1976, no Labour politician other than Tony Blair has won an election. He's on the left by default. But all of the failed attempts are left of him: Callaghan (1979) by a little, Foot (1983) by more, Kinnock (1987, 1992) by a little, Brown (2010) and Ed Miliband (2015) also a little.
My issue is with Blair being labelled 'extreme left', not that he is relatively more left wing than Thatcher etc.
PB's voting intentions were representative. That doesn't correlate to every right-wing thought this site has being representative. I just don't like a bunch of right-wingers who look down on the views of everyone to the left of Tony Blair. Proven right 'time and time again'. On what, exactly? On forecasting GEs, I don't dispute that. Somehow though, I think you're talking about more than that.
I also don't get how getting betting predictions right means that someone's politics is representative.
Tony Blair is the most extreme left wing election winner in my lifetime, in fact in nearly half a century.
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
The fact that Blair is seen as extreme left wing on here says everything. You may as well just say the only reasonable view points on anything are right wing/
Can you name a further left-wing GE winner since 1975 than Tony Blair?
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Most of the British PMs in the last forty years have been Conservative, haven't they? So Blair as a Labour leader will obviously be more left wing than them. But that doesn't mean he's 'extreme left'.
@MyBurningEars is spot on with what I meant. Arranged from left-to-right he is literally the one on the extreme left of all the election winners in the last 40 year period. Your comment on people looking down on those to the left of Blair would be equivalent to someone saying that left-wingers can look down on those to the right of Thatcher.
Arranged from left to right Blair is not extreme left. Relatively more left-wing than other PMs, yes. But that doesn't equal extreme left.
If he is the most left-wing, that does put him on the extreme. It's just a poor choice of adjective given the context.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
What happens now to Trump's business interests? Is there a process for avoiding conflicts of interests (as we have in the UK), or is it up to him to do what he likes?
Ivanka will run it probably along with the other Trump siblings, ironically they could be more successful than their father, but it depends on President Trump's popularity.
The more popular Trump becomes the greater success his businesses will have.
Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
Sad to see your ignorance and lack of the ability to put yourself in the mind of those who disagree with you. My wife voted Trump, and she is none of the things you describe - a physician, feminist, libertarian, who works with and has friends in various ethnic and LBGT communities. She could vote for Trump because she thinks his views on those issues are immaterial - the battle for their rights have been won and the victory is irreversible, as it is not in the power of the Presidency to overturn them and there is no support in congress for that. Same for abortion rights.
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
My wife, my daughter, and I all voted for Trump. Getting beyond the noise the choice we all felt was simple - it ain't working and Clinton represents more of the same. Something has to change and Trump was the only one who had a chance of making some changes. Will he be successful? Who knows, but the status quo was not an option. Given a choice between ongoing failure and the chance of success, however small, you take the chance.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
There is also the chance of failure; of regression.
Comments
Among the national pollsters only 2 (LAT, IBD/TIPP) where right.
Among the state pollsters it's a scattering of occasional hits, like Selzer or SurveyUSA or the Trafalgar Group or Siena.
It's amazing but the Trafalgar Group seemed the most accurate, the only pollster to call Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida correct.
*) As much as anything else, Clinton oozed a sense of entitlement: something I sadly did not fully capture earlier. 2008 was *her* presidency. 2016 was *definitively* her presidency. This belief in her rights led her to a disastrous loss. A change of tone alone - of positivity - might have swung it.
*) The much-derided comparisons with Brexit were valid, at least in one way. The liberal (**) Democrats have lost touch with those whom they have left behind. Like what I prefer to call the 'High Church' of the EU, they have come to think of the rightness of their project is enough. They do not need to sell it to those that do not see immediate advantage from it.
*) Urrrm, I cannot remember the next one ... Oh, that was it: nope, it's gone. Bu**er. Edit 2: expect more mass-media 'stars' to move into politics. They are somewhat immune to the usual complaints because they are not part of the system (despite being part of an equally fraudulent and biased system (***)
(*) IME uninterrupted cooking is, aside from long-distance walking, the best place to think. Unlike long-distance walking, it has the advantage of Internet access readily available afterwards.
(**) I would like to think of myself as socially liberal, if not necessarily subject to this specific disease.
(***) I *think* that was it ...
While many left-wingers look down on the views of everyone to the right of Tony Blair, let alone to the right of Cameron, Major or Thatcher.
2. Mowing the lawn
3. Shaving
Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It's not a simple racism story
It's perfectly possible to question the decency of 60m within that context. Clinton is terrible, but Trump with his views on minorities and women, is worse.
They predicted the right winner but did so based on Trump winning the national share of the vote by +3 in LA Times case. That's probably going to fall outside the margin of error.
Sins of the fathers let alone great-great-great grandfathers.
My theory of GOP Primary-GE, didn't hold up in Wisconsin, but it looks great with the DEM Primary-GE relation.
2) Our lawn is tiny. And besides, being a city girl, she rarely ventures into the garden.
3) I rarely shave. See my profile pic for a modest example.
I guess the Americans are anticipating a business-friendly administration.
Nevertheless I remain sceptical as to how much infrastructure Trump will be able to deliver (he is a bit like Boris in probably preferring something big and glamorous with his name on it, to mundane but useful staff like classrooms and filling potholes), and my instinct is that there isn't much more upside in the markets, particularly in the U.K., other than any further currency-driven rise in £ value of foreign assets and earnings.
Of course it's fine to question the values of people who support Trump who is a proto facist, psychotic, racist, misogynist who's supported by the likes of the KKK, neo Nazis, the EDL, Putin.... etc........Trump supporters are either ridiculous illiterates...in which case you feel sorry for them; or terrible racists, or quite simply unashamedly facists. I cannot think of any other reason why one would support him.
And his admirers on pbCOM are really the pond life dwellers on this site.
(I think Philip's point wasn't that Tony Blair was some kind of raving cypto-Marxist, but within the pantheon of British PMs elected within the past 40 years, arranged in political order, he is indeed the one on the extreme left...)
Criminality within that particular context is not really relevant to modern day Australia.
Along with Virginia, which proved that the early exit polls where crap.
Trump was heading to victory after those two.
Also I'm not quite understanding how you've decided Blair is extreme left-wing on the account that no else more left wing than him has won a GE. If anything, that shows Blair isn't extreme left wing.
The Spreads though are very dangerous for the average bettor.
Milford has apparently declared with Trump ahead by 34 votes, and the remaining four towns are tiny - Sutton has 489 votes and went 55.2% for Obama, Sutton 1199 and 54.5%, Orford 694 and 65.5%, and finally Stratford 272 and 61.4%.
That means Trump is 1211 votes behind with only 2654 to declare. Trump needs 73% of the vote, that's a 32% swing.
Zero chance.
I did manage to yank my position on BF over far enough to end up OK. Depending on how the last bets come in, I might be in a small profit or a manageable loss. Oh well.
Thank God that the result is decisive and not dependent upon recounts.
Had Clinton won the popular vote by 3% or above then she'd be the 45th President.
Keep going @dogbasket
I would say Blair was hardly a social democrat let alone a socialist. If he hadn't been the leader of the Labour Party, I would put him down as a purged-by-Thatcher-Wet Tory.
We we will therefore file him under total lying twat....
sorted
So all the things you find awful in Trump were immaterial to her voting decision.
https://www.ft.com/content/0c129a2c-81a0-3e3a-b17b-792646ea85eb
People should not thank me for making the right call early, they should thank those who by popular demand unbanned me.
My spreads have lost me a touch, but they were a good pair of bets.
Trump is de-facto the first independent President.
It could have been Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan in 1992, one had the money the other the charisma but only Trump had both.
The other possibility is the 5 Star Movement becoming the government in Italy.
Note: missing Milford result is here. http://patch.com/new-hampshire/milford-nh/trump-wins-milford
I fear that is where your people such as your wife are sadly mistaken: they have only been partially won (e.g. see the attitude towards gay marriage), and are reversible.
IMO the main role of a president is to be a leader. It is perfectly possible to lead in what might, from a liberal viewpoint, be a regressive direction. And there are plenty of people who want to slam the gear stick into reverse who are awaiting a leader.
I'd expect him to hand over control of his business interests to Ivanka.
We are not racists, fascists, or illiterates. We don't call our opponents silly names either.
The more popular Trump becomes the greater success his businesses will have.