Now here's a question. If, just before some future US election, you see that:
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls - Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her - Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A' - Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably - The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
Now here's a question. If, just before some future US election, you see that:
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls - Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her - Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A' - Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably - The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
Is A an incumbent ?
What pattern of GOP/DEM has preceeded A, and is A a Dem or GOP ?
Is A attracting support at rallies ?
How did A do in their primary ?
If "A" is Donald Trump next time round, I'd advise the 2-5. If it is say Warren, I'd be very very cautious.
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
next mid term 25 Dem US Senators are up for reelection, 5 in red states.
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
The GOP bench will be quite deep with new, currently up-and-coming stars. Nikki Haley's second term as Governor of SC ends conveniently in 2019. The new Governor of Missouri is one to look out for. Just check out that impressive resume - and that's before he has served his first term.
"Clinton lost because she couldn’t get a lot of Obama voters to turnout for her, "
I've heard this surprisingly often, considering how recent the election was. However it isn't very plausible. I assume it's popular with the losers because it's more reassuring than the alternatives.
Keiran Pedley posted an article here yesterday showing that Romney (2012 )and Trump (2016) received about the same number of votes, while Clinton (2016) received 6 million fewer than Obama (2012). Phew. So a bunch of Democrats stayed home. Case closed.
Except this completely ignores the fact that the GOP establishment disowned Trump and in many cases worked against him. The "conservative" commentariat were almost all loudly ranged against him. By contrast, those same people had energetically campaigned for Mitt Romney. To believe the "6 million Democrat voters stayed home" story, you must also believe that the Republican establishment and commentariat is utterly, totally and completely ineffectual. That either support or condemnation from Ryan, McCain, Romney and all the rest had no more influence on the election than me making a speech to my cat.
A far more credible explanation for Kieran's figures is that ... a) Official Republican opposition cost Trump some votes - probably a few million b) Clinton being a disastrous candidate caused some Democrats to stay at home - probably a few million c) Trump's skills as a campaigner and his appeal as a candidate drew in enough extra votes - quite likely former Democrats - to erase the effect of a).
You can see why the establishment would hate that version - it implies that there are millions of Republican votes still available if the party hierarchy just stops opposing it's own candidate.
Welcome
Very good first post. There is a lot of evidence many Obama voters a switched to Trump in the mid west as well as a lot of them staying home.
Were some of Trump voters bigoted? Yes but they probably have already been voting Republican anyway. He needed switchers to win those states who if they voted Obama twice would be some very strange racists! More likely his trade message resonated.
Now here's a question. If, just before some future US election, you see that:
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls - Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her - Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A' - Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably - The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
I think you should ask yourself where B's votes are coming from. If they are from groups who are likely to be under-represented in polls but motivated, time to be cautious.
Now here's a question. If, just before some future US election, you see that:
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls - Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her - Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A' - Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably - The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
Is A an incumbent ?
What pattern of GOP/DEM has preceeded A, and is A a Dem or GOP ?
Is A attracting support at rallies ?
How did A do in their primary ?
If "A" is Donald Trump next time round, I'd advise the 2-5. If it is say Warren, I'd be very very cautious.
Yes, all good points, although you might find yourself fighting the last war.
This time around, I think the objective evidence was that betting on Clinton and optimising one's book for an eventual result of her getting 300 to 340 or so was correct on the information available. It was only really when the first hard results started coming in - not even the exit polls - that I can see any really substantial evidence that pointed in the other direction. So I think on the same facts I would set up my book the same way with two exceptions:
- I'd try to flatten out shape of the book so it was less exposed at the outer scenarios - The spread bets were probably objectively wrong in terms of the risk/reward ratio.
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
The GOP bench will be quite deep with new, currently up-and-coming stars. Nikki Haley's second term as Governor of SC ends conveniently in 2019. The new Governor of Missouri is one to look out for. Just check out that impressive resume - and that's before he has served his first term.
OK - a random list of possible Democratic candidates from the House. Ruben Gallego (Arizona), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)( but a recent history!), either of the Castro twins (Texas). And how about Beto O'Rourke from Texas (crazy name, crazy life).
Very good first post. There is a lot of evidence many Obama voters a switched to Trump in the mid west as well as a lot of them staying home.
Were some of Trump voters bigoted? Yes but they probably have already been voting Republican anyway. He needed switchers to win those states who if they voted Obama twice would be some very strange racists! More likely his trade message resonated.
Not for the first time, perhaps Obama's condescending instructions telling people to vote a certain way were counter-productive. Remember him telling an audience it would be an insult to his legacy not to vote for Hillary?
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
The GOP bench will be quite deep with new, currently up-and-coming stars. Nikki Haley's second term as Governor of SC ends conveniently in 2019. The new Governor of Missouri is one to look out for. Just check out that impressive resume - and that's before he has served his first term.
OK - a random list of possible Democratic candidates from the House. Ruben Gallego (Arizona), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)( but a recent history!), either of the Castro twins (Texas). And how about Beto O'Rourke from Texas (crazy name, crazy life).
Debbie Wasserman Schultz? - She resigned from the DNC in disgrace having attempted to rig an election. – Do the Democratics really want another sleazy candidate?
"Clinton lost because she couldn’t get a lot of Obama voters to turnout for her, "
I've heard this surprisingly often, considering how recent the election was. However it isn't very plausible. I assume it's popular with the losers because it's more reassuring than the alternatives.
Keiran Pedley posted an article here yesterday showing that Romney (2012 )and Trump (2016) received about the same number of votes, while Clinton (2016) received 6 million fewer than Obama (2012). Phew. So a bunch of Democrats stayed home. Case closed.
Except this completely ignores the fact that the GOP establishment disowned Trump and in many cases worked against him. The "conservative" commentariat were almost all loudly ranged against him. By contrast, those same people had energetically campaigned for Mitt Romney. To believe the "6 million Democrat voters stayed home" story, you must also believe that the Republican establishment and commentariat is utterly, totally and completely ineffectual. That either support or condemnation from Ryan, McCain, Romney and all the rest had no more influence on the election than me making a speech to my cat.
A far more credible explanation for Kieran's figures is that ... a) Official Republican opposition cost Trump some votes - probably a few million b) Clinton being a disastrous candidate caused some Democrats to stay at home - probably a few million c) Trump's skills as a campaigner and his appeal as a candidate drew in enough extra votes - quite likely former Democrats - to erase the effect of a).
You can see why the establishment would hate that version - it implies that there are millions of Republican votes still available if the party hierarchy just stops opposing it's own candidate.
Just over a million fewer African Americans voted this time, as Trump won several states by 20k-50k votes it might have made a difference
Yes, all good points, although you might find yourself fighting the last war.
This time around, I think the objective evidence was that betting on Clinton and optimising one's book for an eventual result of her getting 300 to 340 or so was correct on the information available. It was only really when the first hard results started coming in - not even the exit polls - that I can see any really substantial evidence that pointed in the other direction. So I think on the same facts I would set up my book the same way with two exceptions:
- I'd try to flatten out shape of the book so it was less exposed at the outer scenarios - The spread bets were probably objectively wrong in terms of the risk/reward ratio.
Hmm. I'd be pretty tempted to follow a very simple algorithm. Back the candidate whose price is longer than Nate Silver thinks it should be.
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
The GOP bench will be quite deep with new, currently up-and-coming stars. Nikki Haley's second term as Governor of SC ends conveniently in 2019. The new Governor of Missouri is one to look out for. Just check out that impressive resume - and that's before he has served his first term.
OK - a random list of possible Democratic candidates from the House. Ruben Gallego (Arizona), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)( but a recent history!), either of the Castro twins (Texas). And how about Beto O'Rourke from Texas (crazy name, crazy life).
Debbie Wasserman Schultz? - She resigned from the DNC in disgrace having attempted to rig an election. – Do the Democratics really want another sleazy candidate?
- and having resigned was immediately hired by Clinton as honorary chair of her campaign.
Wouldn't the cabinet meet, nominate one of their number. Who would then be invited to the palace?
The Government would quickly appoint an Interim leader, Possibly Hammond, but anyone would do. He/She would then go to Buck House to "Kiss hands". The Party would then organise a Leadership Race. Once a new Leader is chosen, the Interim Leader would go to the Queen to tender his resignation and request Her Majesty call the new Leader (to continue) to form the Government.
Calling the PB brains trust to answer a question from my kids.
If the PM died in office, who would the Queen appoint as their immediate replacement?
Do your kids know something we don't? Perhaps it wasn't Leonard Cohen....?
We were discussing the presidential succession. Then I got the question, what do we do. Normally I'm good at this stuff. But at least I know who to call.
Lobbyists offering to help Trump drain the swamp...
“Trump has pledged to change things in Washington — about draining the swamp,” said Mr. Lott, who now works at Squire Patton Boggs, a law and lobbying firm. “He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp — how do you get in and how you get out? We are prepared to help do that.”
Calling the PB brains trust to answer a question from my kids.
If the PM died in office, who would the Queen appoint as their immediate replacement?
Do your kids know something we don't? Perhaps it wasn't Leonard Cohen....?
We were discussing the presidential succession. Then I got the question, what do we do. Normally I'm good at this stuff. But at least I know who to call.
Calling the PB brains trust to answer a question from my kids.
If the PM died in office, who would the Queen appoint as their immediate replacement?
Do your kids know something we don't? Perhaps it wasn't Leonard Cohen....?
We were discussing the presidential succession. Then I got the question, what do we do. Normally I'm good at this stuff. But at least I know who to call.
The Hillary campaign saw defeat coming for months before the election.
Do you have any links to reports that the Clinton campaign knew they were in trouble? For me the first sign that things were not going well was the cancelling of the fireworks. But then again I switched off a while ago so haven't been paying much attention.
Wouldn't the cabinet meet, nominate one of their number. Who would then be invited to the palace?
There is no formal process, the appointment of the prime minister is still technically a royal prerogative.
None have died in office for centuries I think but a few have resigned abruptly due to ill health (Macmillan most recently).
What has happened in the past is a fairly mysterious process where the monarch consults with party grandees to decide on the best candidate.
It's normally obvious, and it's not obvious Her Maj will let it be known she doesn't want to be Activated until it becomes obvious. Like in 2010.
A D-H wasn't!
In terms of immediate practical government there will be someone designated to take over, as they do at the moment if the PM is on holiday or unreachable for some reason. Who this is depends on who the PM wants it to be rather than a formal designation like the US.
I suspect in practice it would be an interim leader followed by a contest, but there's no definitive answer set out in law anywhere.
The Hillary campaign saw defeat coming for months before the election.
Do you have any links to reports that the Clinton campaign knew they were in trouble? For me the first sign that things were not going well was the cancelling of the fireworks. But then again I switched off a while ago so haven't been paying much attention.
I think the repetitive "WE'RE SCREWED" and "ELECTION IS OVER, WE LOST" by James Carville speaks for it's self.
Some campaigns do not publicly admit what was going on behind the scenes until after it's over.
CNN caught using their own camera man as fake protestor. What a bunch of tools. No wonder public trust in media is so very low in the US. The acting is terrible as well.
“Trump won the Homosexual vote by 1% over Hillary, something unheard of for a Republican.”
Clinton’s attack ads of Trump smooching Putin may have backfired with the pink community.
Trump was not kidding about doing great with minorities and gays. He actually did do great for a republican.
It's the economy stupid, as Clinton in 1992 would have said.
Populism and economics defeat identity politics.
Look at the Moore-Scarborough video bellow, Micheal Moore explains perfectly why the poor and the middle class voted Trump against the social objections of the Left.
Also look at the reaction of the others in the discussion, who demanded that voters should understand more about the feelings of rich people in Manhattan before voting Trump.
Lets see, we have the USA, Britain and Russia (France could be added soon to the list) ruled by populists or quazi-populists all of whom have now potential conflict with Germany.
Germany should beware of resurrecting even by accident the geopolitical situation of WW2.
But it's good for British interests for the EU to come in conflict with the USA now that we need allies to counter the EU.
He really is a liability. How has he not been encouraged to take early retirement??
How the US-EU relationship develops really is the crucial question facing the West at the moment so for Juncker to say that is unbelievably crass. I'm pretty confident that Trump and Putin will want to agree a wide ranging new settlement between the US and Russia, but if the EU/Europe is not on board it will get ugly.
"Clinton lost because she couldn’t get a lot of Obama voters to turnout for her, "
I've heard this surprisingly often, considering how recent the election was. However it isn't very plausible. I assume it's popular with the losers because it's more reassuring than the alternatives.
Keiran Pedley posted an article here yesterday showing that Romney (2012 )and Trump (2016) received about the same number of votes, while Clinton (2016) received 6 million fewer than Obama (2012). Phew. So a bunch of Democrats stayed home. Case closed.
Except this completely ignores the fact that the GOP establishment disowned Trump and in many cases worked against him. The "conservative" commentariat were almost all loudly ranged against him. By contrast, those same people had energetically campaigned for Mitt Romney. To believe the "6 million Democrat voters stayed home" story, you must also believe that the Republican establishment and commentariat is utterly, totally and completely ineffectual. That either support or condemnation from Ryan, McCain, Romney and all the rest had no more influence on the election than me making a speech to my cat.
A far more credible explanation for Kieran's figures is that ... a) Official Republican opposition cost Trump some votes - probably a few million b) Clinton being a disastrous candidate caused some Democrats to stay at home - probably a few million c) Trump's skills as a campaigner and his appeal as a candidate drew in enough extra votes - quite likely former Democrats - to erase the effect of a).
You can see why the establishment would hate that version - it implies that there are millions of Republican votes still available if the party hierarchy just stops opposing it's own candidate.
Just over a million fewer African Americans voted this time, as Trump won several states by 20k-50k votes it might have made a difference
The 'Republican establishment' were ineffectual. This was an election where the establishment got trounced, and it started in the primaries.
OT: is there any news of what's happening in the Richmond b/e?
Many hundreds of enthusiastic LibDem volunteers flooding the place. Posters and stake boards springing up everywhere. Lots of positive anecdotes from doorsteps and on the streets. But will it be enough? I really don't know. A popular incumbent with a 23,000 majority is a helluva mountain to climb! I still reckon it is about a 35% chance.
One thing I am surprised the LDs are not better at is expectation management.
We don`t need to be, Mr Mortimer. You Tories do that for us, all the time.
Now here's a question. If, just before some future US election, you see that:
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls - Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her - Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A' - Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably - The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
Is A an incumbent ?
What pattern of GOP/DEM has preceeded A, and is A a Dem or GOP ?
Is A attracting support at rallies ?
How did A do in their primary ?
If "A" is Donald Trump next time round, I'd advise the 2-5. If it is say Warren, I'd be very very cautious.
Yes, all good points, although you might find yourself fighting the last war.
This time around, I think the objective evidence was that betting on Clinton and optimising one's book for an eventual result of her getting 300 to 340 or so was correct on the information available. It was only really when the first hard results started coming in - not even the exit polls - that I can see any really substantial evidence that pointed in the other direction. So I think on the same facts I would set up my book the same way with two exceptions:
- I'd try to flatten out shape of the book so it was less exposed at the outer scenarios - The spread bets were probably objectively wrong in terms of the risk/reward ratio.
I thought a very narrow Hillary Victory, 279 to 259. I based that on a real surge in the generic vote for Republicans, and solid polling for Republican Senators. 340 seemed way too high to me, and the odds against Trump too long, so I bet accordingly.
“Trump won the Homosexual vote by 1% over Hillary, something unheard of for a Republican.”
Clinton’s attack ads of Trump smooching Putin may have backfired with the pink community.
Trump was not kidding about doing great with minorities and gays. He actually did do great for a republican.
It's the economy stupid, as Clinton in 1992 would have said.
Populism and economics defeat identity politics.
Look at the Moore-Scarborough video bellow, Micheal Moore explains perfectly why the poor and the middle class voted Trump against the social objections of the Left.
Also look at the reaction of the others in the discussion, who demanded that voters should understand more about the feelings of rich people in Manhattan before voting Trump.
This is why a Centrist governing party can be defeated by a Radical Populist.
The 'unfairness' factor is key.
In a fair society not only must everyone be able to succeed everyone must also be at risk of failing.
But now the 'rich', the 'elite', the '1%' are protected.
These people NEVER lose out and its a worldwide trend.
In this country we saw the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth walk away with millions, public sector fatcats sacked from one job given another, the carefree merry-go-round of politicians and business.
Having looked at the list of Democrat senators and governors it is difficult to see an obvious candidate from a swing state who could add to the ticket. The high profile/good back story candidates seem to be in safe seats( in general elections terms). Perhaps there is a Matt Santos candidate lurking in the House? I'll check this out.
The GOP bench will be quite deep with new, currently up-and-coming stars. Nikki Haley's second term as Governor of SC ends conveniently in 2019. The new Governor of Missouri is one to look out for. Just check out that impressive resume - and that's before he has served his first term.
OK - a random list of possible Democratic candidates from the House. Ruben Gallego (Arizona), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)( but a recent history!), either of the Castro twins (Texas). And how about Beto O'Rourke from Texas (crazy name, crazy life).
Wasserman Schultz. LOL. Where is the emoji for crying with laughter.
That said, I'm unlikely to get Mass Effect Andromeda. Leaving aside I dislike Bioware's approach to DLC, one of the chaps working on the game, Manveer Heir, has posted less than lovely things about white people. I don't especially feel like throwing my money towards a firm that tolerates that sort of bullshit.
More fool you. Bioware have produced the genre defining RPGs of the last 20 years. Planescape Torment (indirectly), Baldur's Gate 2, Mass Effect, KOTOR. DLC is unavoidable.
The best way to avoid DLC is to get GOTY editions. I did that for The Witcher 3 and don't regret it. You get a fully patched game with all the DLC for a discount, the only downside is waiting for 6-9 months.
Well Canada and Mexico are now willing to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump, of course no one is sure how that renegotiation will work out.
But it wont be bad for Britain to enter those negotiations as an extra actor, at least being on the table when such important negotiations takes place shows your importance (even if you are not important).
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
Well Canada and Mexico are now willing to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump, of course no one is sure how that renegotiation will work out.
But it wont be bad for Britain to enter those negotiations as an extra actor, at least being on the table when such important negotiations takes place shows your importance (even if you are not important).
Whats happened to our JackW, has he disappeared up his own ARSE?
I think he said he was taking a break; the results of both Brexit and POTUS were not kind to him.
Yes, it must have been a great disappointment when Hillary failed to come through, and he was so sure of the outcome, too. I wonder how much he lost, if he did indeed bet on his ARSE?
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
And how much time is Juncker wasting as the EU implosion time bomb is ticking?
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
Fucking hell, what a complete dickhead.
Junker reminds me of a politician rearing at the bit for war with the world. He just cant bear it that he comes from a little flea bit of Europe call Luxembourg: it's only claim to fame is as a pathway for armies to cross going somewhere else.
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
You can make many criticisms of Donald Trump - and Lord knows I would - you can't reasonably say that he's not well-travelled:
The BBC have updated the Juncker article with some quotes.
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
Does anyone know what Mr Juncker was planning to do during the next two years that will be blocked by Mr Trump? It must be something significant or it wouldn't appear to Mr Juncker as 2 wasted years.
Very good first post. There is a lot of evidence many Obama voters a switched to Trump in the mid west as well as a lot of them staying home.
Were some of Trump voters bigoted? Yes but they probably have already been voting Republican anyway. He needed switchers to win those states who if they voted Obama twice would be some very strange racists! More likely his trade message resonated.
I think there's some middle-ground in between Motivated By Economics and Racist.
ARCADIA, Wis.—Small towns in the Midwest have diversified more quickly than almost any part of the U.S. since the start of an immigration wave at the beginning of this century. The resulting cultural changes appear to be moving the political needle.
This matches the pattern with UKIP / Brexit: A lot of small towns are seeing people from different cultures living in their small towns in substantial numbers for the first time. They're not necessarily huge numbers, but if you go from 0% to 5% that's quite a big cultural change. These are people who don't like change. If they did, they'd have left these small towns already and moved somewhere with better prospects.
Comments
- Candidate A is ahead by a couple of points in the national polls
- Candidate A is ahead in WI CO NV FL PA NH MI VA and all the easier states for him or her
- Experts like Sabato and Cook reckon all those states are 'Likely A' or 'Lean A'
- Leaks both from the A campaign and the other side indicate they think A will win fairly comfortably
- The odds on candidate A winning are (say) 2/5
How should you bet? And should you change your mind if the exit polls seem to confirm the pre-election polls?
What pattern of GOP/DEM has preceeded A, and is A a Dem or GOP ?
Is A attracting support at rallies ?
How did A do in their primary ?
If "A" is Donald Trump next time round, I'd advise the 2-5. If it is say Warren, I'd be very very cautious.
And now it's none. RIP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Greitens
NAFTA, anyone?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/11/britain-could-join-usa-canada-and-mexico-in-new-free-trade-area
Great idea.
Very good first post. There is a lot of evidence many Obama voters a switched to Trump in the mid west as well as a lot of them staying home.
Were some of Trump voters bigoted? Yes but they probably have already been voting Republican anyway. He needed switchers to win those states who if they voted Obama twice would be some very strange racists! More likely his trade message resonated.
Building bridges
This time around, I think the objective evidence was that betting on Clinton and optimising one's book for an eventual result of her getting 300 to 340 or so was correct on the information available. It was only really when the first hard results started coming in - not even the exit polls - that I can see any really substantial evidence that pointed in the other direction. So I think on the same facts I would set up my book the same way with two exceptions:
- I'd try to flatten out shape of the book so it was less exposed at the outer scenarios
- The spread bets were probably objectively wrong in terms of the risk/reward ratio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmdICjVUIWc
I've equalised my position by backing the 1.13 in the lower band right now.
Good evening, everyone.
2012 – 54.9%
2016 - < 2012 (my guess)
Shy votes/opposition staying home for
Netanyahu
Brexit
Trump
Tories
All the more right wing perceived 'less nice' choice in the media.
https://twitter.com/TPCarney/status/796490294271311872
The Hillary campaign saw defeat coming for months before the election.
I'm really not sure, hence equal position - probably the lower band but still.
If the PM died in office, who would the Queen appoint as their immediate replacement?
Lobbyists offering to help Trump drain the swamp...
“Trump has pledged to change things in Washington — about draining the swamp,” said Mr. Lott, who now works at Squire Patton Boggs, a law and lobbying firm. “He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp — how do you get in and how you get out? We are prepared to help do that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/lobbyists-trump.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-4&action=click&contentCollection=Politics®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
In raw vote numbers so far Hillary lost almost 1.5 million black women voters and almost 2 million white male voters.
Trump lost also almost 2 million white male voters, but won almost 0.5 million Hispanic women voters.
Trump won more minorities than Romney, and won the Homosexual vote by 1% over Hillary, something unheard of for a Republican.
Hillary didn't lose because democrats didn't come to vote, enough democrats switched to Trump for her to lose.
Here is more evidence:
https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/797124845268008960
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796435039223283712
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/796846348045848576
As Bill Clinton might have said, it's the economy stupid.
None have died in office for centuries I think but a few have resigned abruptly due to ill health (Macmillan most recently).
What has happened in the past is a fairly mysterious process where the monarch consults with party grandees to decide on the best candidate.
https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/797101344641478657
Some panel hosts even demanded that middle america should understand how people in Manhattan feel, instead of voting for Trump.
In terms of immediate practical government there will be someone designated to take over, as they do at the moment if the PM is on holiday or unreachable for some reason. Who this is depends on who the PM wants it to be rather than a formal designation like the US.
I suspect in practice it would be an interim leader followed by a contest, but there's no definitive answer set out in law anywhere.
Clinton’s attack ads of Trump smooching Putin may have backfired with the pink community.
Some campaigns do not publicly admit what was going on behind the scenes until after it's over.
CNN caught using their own camera man as fake protestor. What a bunch of tools. No wonder public trust in media is so very low in the US. The acting is terrible as well.
' If white non-college educated voters are acting like a minority it’s because they feel like a minority. '
We are all minorities now.
If we want to reverse that mentality then government needs to start telling 'Community Leaders' to f'ck off.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/797162207008223233
Petrol on the flames, I'd have thought.
He actually did do great for a republican.
It's the economy stupid, as Clinton in 1992 would have said.
Populism and economics defeat identity politics.
Look at the Moore-Scarborough video bellow, Micheal Moore explains perfectly why the poor and the middle class voted Trump against the social objections of the Left.
Also look at the reaction of the others in the discussion, who demanded that voters should understand more about the feelings of rich people in Manhattan before voting Trump.
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/797095720562135041
This is why a Centrist governing party can be defeated by a Radical Populist.
Germany should beware of resurrecting even by accident the geopolitical situation of WW2.
But it's good for British interests for the EU to come in conflict with the USA now that we need allies to counter the EU.
In a fair society not only must everyone be able to succeed everyone must also be at risk of failing.
But now the 'rich', the 'elite', the '1%' are protected.
These people NEVER lose out and its a worldwide trend.
In this country we saw the likes of Goodwin and Applegarth walk away with millions, public sector fatcats sacked from one job given another, the carefree merry-go-round of politicians and business.
?
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/11/trump-threat-tweet.png
Shifts from the national average compared with the 1988 US Presidential election.
Alabama +21% to the Right
Alaska +1R
Arizona 7% to the Left
Arkansas 20R
California 23L
Colorado 1L
Connecticut 6L
Delaware 13L
Florida 14L
Georgia 8L
Hawaii 13L
Idaho 14R
Illinois 9L
Indiana 8R
Iowa 29R
Kansas 17R
Kentucky 27R
Louisiana 19R
Maine 5L
Maryland 19L
Massachusetts 9L
Michigan 2R
Minnesota 14R
Mississippi 6R
Missouri 24R
Montana 25R
Nebraska 14R
N.H 18L
N.J 18L
N.M 4L
N.Y 9L
Nevada 14L
N.Carolina 3L
N.Dakota 32R
Oregon 3R
Ohio 6R
Oklahoma 29R
Pennsylvania 8R
Rhode Island 5R
S.Carolina 12R
S.Dakota 33R
Tennessee 19R
Texas 6R
Utah 8L
Vermont 23L
Virginia 16L
Washington 7L
West Virginia 57R
Wisconsin 7R
Wyoming 33R
But basically the changes seem to have happened in two steps, Step One the 2000 election, Step Two the 2016 election.
Whats happened to our JackW, has he disappeared up his own ARSE?
But it wont be bad for Britain to enter those negotiations as an extra actor, at least being on the table when such important negotiations takes place shows your importance (even if you are not important).
I think he said he was taking a break; the results of both Brexit and POTUS were not kind to him.
Garbage in Garbage out.
When the electorate is in such flux the chances of being wrong are much higher than usual.
But Prof. Linchman is still correct, remember his 13 keys that we debated here in the summer?
Quoted by Luxembourg newspaper Le Quotidien, Mr Juncker, a former prime minister of the tiny state, continued: "In general the Americans pay no heed to Europe. As for Mr Trump, if I understand properly, he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere on our continent...
"My honest opinion? With Mr Trump, we are going to waste two years while he tours a world he doesn't know."
The EU Elite are not having a good year.
http://fortune.com/2015/09/17/republican-candidates-world-travel/
https://twitter.com/Slate/status/797131041932713993
I hope she can look her self in the mirror.
I can't get past the paywall but from Nov 1st:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/places-most-unsettled-by-rapid-demographic-change-go-for-donald-trump-1478010940 This matches the pattern with UKIP / Brexit: A lot of small towns are seeing people from different cultures living in their small towns in substantial numbers for the first time. They're not necessarily huge numbers, but if you go from 0% to 5% that's quite a big cultural change. These are people who don't like change. If they did, they'd have left these small towns already and moved somewhere with better prospects.