politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are expecting WH2016 vote totals to be finalised quickl

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are expecting WH2016 vote totals to be finalised quickly don’t hold your breath. In 2012 we had to wait till January

At the 2012 White House Race we had a very special reason on PB to pay close attention to the precise national popular vote numbers in the period after the election.

Read the full story here

IanB2

First! Unlike the vote totals, Hillary, and Zac.

A funny country where 90% of the votes are counted almost instantly and the remainder admired at leisure.

Bromptonaut

There is no plan means there is no plan.

Sandpit

Third! I wonder how long it will take Shadsy to agree that the PV lead is between 0 and 5% for Clinton?

SouthamObserver

Second, like Trump :-)

DavidL

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

SouthamObserver

SouthamObserver said:

Second, like Trump :-)

Oh well. There's another bad call to add to the list!

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

peter_from_putney

First .... again!!

ThreeQuidder

peter_from_putney said:

First .... again!!

Eh?...

AndyJS

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

SouthamObserver

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

Sandpit

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

Yes, the problem is that the elections are organised by the States, who often delegate down to counties and towns - all basically organised by local politicians - hence all the stupid partisan rules and regulations which are different everywhere.

But they're all at it, and to introduce something like a British Electoral Commission at any level would require the political turkeys to vote for Christmas. Not good for democracy.

Sandpit

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Thanks for the link - and of course your own efforts with Electoral spreadsheets

foxinsoxuk

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

Quite a few states are fairly finely balanced, the EC does make for leveraged results.

peter_from_putney

Another betting market yet to be settled is the number of States won by the Republicans. I make it 30, which is right on the limit of Ladbrokes' 21-30 State band as mentioned by Richard Nabavi at an early stage of the election campaign. Yet Laddies are using the ridiculous delay with Michigan to delay paying out winning bets ....... certainly no Paddy Power they, who even pay out on losing bets, although I suspect those days will shortly be over now that they've merged with Betfair.

AndyJS

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/wJlQ9

AlastairMeeks

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

SouthamObserver

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

Quite a few states are fairly finely balanced, the EC does make for leveraged results.

The current Hillary states plus Texas give the Democrats 270 electoral college votes. It could be that within a couple of electoral cycles the rust belt swing states will be taken out of the equation. If Trump messes up, it may be as soon as 2020.

DavidL

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

Indeed. And the districting nonsense in Congress would embarrass your average banana republic. Their democracy is genuinely sick and they don't seem to care.

Sean_F

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

felix

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

And even they apppear happy to tolerate it when it works in their favour

SouthamObserver

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

TOPPING

No surprises about the news on Br*x*t.

Person on R4 agreeing that it will not happen in 24-hr news cycle time. Comparing Tezza with Gozza.

What larks.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

Indeed. And the districting nonsense in Congress would embarrass your average banana republic. Their democracy is genuinely sick and they don't seem to care.

I did wonder if what we were watching in the US was the equivalent of trying to base a view of the British Parliament by only watching half an hour of PMQs every week.

But you're right, politics in the USA is very broken. For all that's been said about Trump, if he can make serious inroads into draining the swamp then his presidency might yet come to be remembered as successful. He'll have to stand up to the Washington Republicans to get it done though, which will require throwing them some red meat first. Interesting times ahead.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

Casino_Royale

peter_from_putney said:

Another betting market yet to be settled is the number of States won by the Republicans. I make it 30, which is right on the limit of Ladbrokes' 21-30 State band as mentioned by Richard Nabavi at an early stage of the election campaign. Yet Laddies are using the ridiculous delay with Michigan to delay paying out winning bets ....... certainly no Paddy Power they, who even pay out on losing bets, although I suspect those days will shortly be over now that they've merged with Betfair.

Ladbrokes should do the right thing and pay out now.

Sandpit

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

HaroldO

Been trying to avoid politics for the last few weeks but I caught sight of Corbyn's response to Trump and had to post.
What a complete moron that man is , and his team. A vote for a right wing billionaire is a vote for anti-establishment people like himself? A left wing invisible man who has never had a job outside of politics?! Argh!

AlastairMeeks

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

AndyJS

Easyjet — 27% drop in profits.

IanB2

https://www.ft.com/content/b26899a6-aa58-11e6-a0bb-97f42551dbf4

Keep Calm, Carry On: A sensible view from Janan, for those with FT access.

AndyJS

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

California would have around 65 ECVs if they were apportioned in direct relationship to the population.

PlatoSaid

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Has Michigan even been formally declared yet? Its a truly weird system. I don't understand why they tolerate such incompetence.

They seem to tolerate a lot over in the US when it comes to elections. I guess it's the federal system. The voter suppression and the non-availability of polling stations in some areas is truly outrageous, but apart from a few disgusting, out of touch, unpatriotic and anti-white bleeding heart liberals no-one seems to give a monkeys.

Indeed. And the districting nonsense in Congress would embarrass your average banana republic. Their democracy is genuinely sick and they don't seem to care.

I did wonder if what we were watching in the US was the equivalent of trying to base a view of the British Parliament by only watching half an hour of PMQs every week.

But you're right, politics in the USA is very broken. For all that's been said about Trump, if he can make serious inroads into draining the swamp then his presidency might yet come to be remembered as successful. He'll have to stand up to the Washington Republicans to get it done though, which will require throwing them some red meat first. Interesting times ahead.

I've watched a couple of PMQs on Periscope and the USA viewers are baffled by much of and the customs. Great to see some interested though.

MikeK

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

chestnut

This is the same EU that yesterday drew up a 16 point defence plan but couldn't actually talk about money because actually paying for it was 'too divisive'?

The same EU where it's only nuclear powers won't turn up to emergency Trump talks?

The EU where the Nordics are not going to subsidise the south and east?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/nordic-leaders-seek-eu-pact-over-post-brexit-power-play

The shrink to core is becoming increasingly probable.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Sandpit

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

AndyJS

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

DavidL

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

Scott_P

Sandpit said:

when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

Paging Dr Pangloss! Dr Pangloss, please report to the Brexit negotiations.

Nigelb

TOPPING said:

No surprises about the news on Br*x*t.

Person on R4 agreeing that it will not happen in 24-hr news cycle time. Comparing Tezza with Gozza.

What larks.

May lacks Brown's apparent pathologies. Having said that, she does seem to be trying to run the government as a cabinet minister would run their department, so it's not at all clear to me that she grasps what it means to be prime minister.
If you are unable to forge a shared set of priorities, and delegate some measure of authority to your ministers, things aren't going to function very well.

DavidL

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

Is that not what happens now?

AndyJS

O/T

Another massive data breach, including 5.2 million UK email addresses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/14/millions-exposed-by-hack-on-sex-hookup-website-adultfriendfinder/

Sandpit

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

That would have been fun for everyone to sort out, with every chance the eventual President was none of the above names that everyone just voted for!

The EC system, rather like our FPTP Parliamentary system, works because it usually gives a clear result, even if it's not the one half of us wanted.

chestnut

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

The EU will turn on itself.

The remainer focus on the repercussions here tends to ignore the repercussions over there.

AndyJS

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

Is that not what happens now?

Yes but they're not necessarily the most populous states.

IanB2

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

That would have been fun for everyone to sort out, with every chance the eventual President was none of the above names that everyone just voted for!

The EC system, rather like our FPTP Parliamentary system, works because it usually gives a clear result, even if it's not the one half of us wanted.

Or in our case more like 60%

DavidL

chestnut said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

The EU will turn on itself.

The remainer focus on the repercussions here tends to ignore the repercussions over there.

Quite so. They will face a series of very difficult budgetary decisions going forward without UK contributions. No wonder they are so anxious to try and extract what they can to ease the pain.

TOPPING

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

No surprises about the news on Br*x*t.

Person on R4 agreeing that it will not happen in 24-hr news cycle time. Comparing Tezza with Gozza.

What larks.

May lacks Brown's apparent pathologies. Having said that, she does seem to be trying to run the government as a cabinet minister would run their department, so it's not at all clear to me that she grasps what it means to be prime minister.
If you are unable to forge a shared set of priorities, and delegate some measure of authority to your ministers, things aren't going to function very well.

Well tbf on the one hand find me one person who shares a set of priorities with Davis, Fox, or Johnson.

But yes, these were traits not unknown prior to her taking office.

IanB2

DavidL said:

chestnut said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

The EU will turn on itself.

The remainer focus on the repercussions here tends to ignore the repercussions over there.

Quite so. They will face a series of very difficult budgetary decisions going forward without UK contributions. No wonder they are so anxious to try and extract what they can to ease the pain.

Hopefully someone in Gvt is working out what various broad deals might be worth to us. Since it appears relatively clear already that we can have quite a wide range of terms subject to the £ we are prepared to contribute, both now and going forward.

Sean_F

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

Bromptonaut

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

chestnut said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

The EU will turn on itself.

The remainer focus on the repercussions here tends to ignore the repercussions over there.

Quite so. They will face a series of very difficult budgetary decisions going forward without UK contributions. No wonder they are so anxious to try and extract what they can to ease the pain.

Hopefully someone in Gvt is working out what various broad deals might be worth to us. Since it appears relatively clear already that we can have quite a wide range of terms subject to the £ we are prepared to contribute, both now and going forward.

The Empress has no clothes. There is no plan.

Sandpit

AndyJS said:

O/T

Another massive data breach, including 5.2 million UK email addresses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/14/millions-exposed-by-hack-on-sex-hookup-website-adultfriendfinder/

That's the second similar site to be hacked. Why anyone signs up for them I don't know, since the first hack revealed the database to be 90% men and with millions of fake bots running almost all the female profiles.

Talking of IT SNAFUs, have the NHS got their email back online yet?

IanB2

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

Eh? Just like our referendum, a one person one vote just-add-them-up election makes it worthwhile campaigning everywhere.

TonyE

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

The EU is not its nation States - nor is the Commission similarly likely motivated to the Council of Ministers. There will be a real range of conflicting issues for the nation states.

foxinsoxuk

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

No chance. The EC is embedded In The Constitution, so not going anywhere.

Alistair

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

Are you talking about how things currently are are or will be?

FF43

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

There are three Brexit delusions, not all held by the same people: 1. Brexit won't happen. 2. The EU will give us what we want. 3, the EU doesn't matter because Britain will be part of a new world order.

The first two delusions are falling away; the third is being clung to for the time being. Rather desperately so, judging by Mrs May's speech yesterday.

not_on_fire

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

56-44 is a fairly comfortable margin in what is essentially a binary choice election.


After all, we found out in June that 52-48 is a landslide

Alistair

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a high vote to ecv ratio.

TOPPING

Bromptonaut said:

IanB2 said:

DavidL said:

chestnut said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

But I'd been assured repeatedly that the EU would be desperate to do a deal with Britain.

Hopefully, what both sides are saying now is pre-negotiation bluster, and when it comes down to actual negotiations - led by the member states rather than the EU bureaucracy - the more pragmatic and conciliatory approach which is in everyone's best interests will prevail.

But we need to make it clear that we will walk if necessary, the former PM failing to do that before his last negotiations is what led us here in the first place!

The EU will turn on itself.

The remainer focus on the repercussions here tends to ignore the repercussions over there.

Quite so. They will face a series of very difficult budgetary decisions going forward without UK contributions. No wonder they are so anxious to try and extract what they can to ease the pain.

Hopefully someone in Gvt is working out what various broad deals might be worth to us. Since it appears relatively clear already that we can have quite a wide range of terms subject to the £ we are prepared to contribute, both now and going forward.

The Empress has no clothes. There is no plan.

Yet. There is 24-hr news cycle time, there is normal time, and then there is civil service time.

The UK's response to Brexit will take place in civil service time. Which is a shame, or rather which is suboptimal for us because Tezza only bought us until March to trigger A50 and then there is an unfeasibly short 2-yr time frame for us to sort our sh*t out.

PlatoSaid

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

I've heard 12 used as the swing-state segment - without the EC, Trump would just spend 4 months in LA, Chicago, NYC et al. It's the best system IMO.

not_on_fire

Thought experiment: suppose the EU elected a president with a similar electoral college system to the US. Which countries would be the "swing states"? I guess the UK would be the equivalent of Texas...

not_on_fire

PlatoSaid said:

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

I've heard 12 used as the swing-state segment - without the EC, Trump would just spend 4 months in LA, Chicago, NYC et al. It's the best system IMO.

But if that were true then surely the only campaigning for the EU referendum would have taken place in London, Manchester or Birmingham. Not the case.

IanB2

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

foxinsoxuk

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

why would tbey want to do that and reduce their representation and influence?

PlatoSaid

TERROR SWOOPS Anti-terror cops carry out dawn raids on 200 flats, offices and mosques across Germany in massive crackdown on ISIS recruiters

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2187052/anti-terror-cops-carry-out-dawn-raids-on-200-flats-offices-and-mosques-across-germany-in-massive-crackdown-on-isis-recruiters/

IanB2

foxinsoxuk said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

why would tbey want to do that and reduce their representation and influence?

It was just an off-the-wall thought. Of course in reality they are not.

not_on_fire

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Alistair

The top 25 cities by population in the US are in 16 different states, go to top 30 and it's 21 different states.

The top 10 are in 6 different states.

Sean_F

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a high vote to ecv ratio.

Obama's vote was very efficient in 2012. A lead of 3.8% translated into a 126 margin in the ECV. A lead of 3.4% for Bush in 2004 gave a 32 vote margin.

SouthamObserver

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

They have only won the popular vote once since 1988.

Sandpit

not_on_fire said:

Thought experiment: suppose the EU elected a president with a similar electoral college system to the US. Which countries would be the "swing states"? I guess the UK would be the equivalent of Texas...

That's an interesting exercise. It would be possible to win more than half the population from just the four largest states, assuming they split evenly then the key battlegrounds would be a little further down - Poland, Romania, Netherlands and Belgium. Spain is probably Florida.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population

IanB2

not_on_fire said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...

ydoethur

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

They have only won the popular vote once since 1988.

But they will have had equal time in the White House by 2020 over that period - 16 years each.

Alistair

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

They have only won the popular vote once since 1988.

The Reps have not won the popular vote without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.

AndyJS

Alistair said:

AndyJS said:

MikeK said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

My take on this is that the electoral college will probably be abolished before the 2024 elections. It is an out of date 18th century format, good for the horse age when news was carried slowly and at a sedate pace. It's been seen to be an anachronism for a long time, but laziness and local power politics has kept it going.

The counterargument made by some is that most campaigning would take place in about 10 states and the other 40 would be ignored if the electoral college were abolished.

Are you talking about how things currently are are or will be?

How they would be in the future with a popular vote system: they argue that only the 10 most populous states would matter. At the moment it's the 10 swing states that are important.

SouthamObserver

IanB2 said:

not_on_fire said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...

More realistically, turn Texas blue. If they can do that - and Trump may help - then a lot of their problems go away.

TOPPING

Is it just me who thinks that however much of a shocker his presidency might or might not be, Trump has more genuine international exposure than many recent POTUSs and including HRC.

Alistair

IanB2 said:

not_on_fire said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...

Did you see that the leaders of the California and Texas successionist movements both attended a "succession" conference in Russian sponsors by the Russian government?

not_on_fire

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

Thought experiment: suppose the EU elected a president with a similar electoral college system to the US. Which countries would be the "swing states"? I guess the UK would be the equivalent of Texas...

That's an interesting exercise. It would be possible to win more than half the population from just the four largest states, assuming they split evenly then the key battlegrounds would be a little further down - Poland, Romania, Netherlands and Belgium. Spain is probably Florida.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population

Thanks. As you say, there are far more "big states" in the EU than in the US, e.g. On a 538 vote system the UK would get about 65 EVs which is bigger than any US state, despite only having the third highest population. Germany would get over 80.

Scott_P

TOPPING said:

Is it just me who thinks that however much of a shocker his presidency might or might not be, Trump has more genuine international exposure than many recent POTUSs and including HRC.

Define "exposure"...

https://twitter.com/ericliptonnyt/status/798386072594083841

IanB2

Alistair said:

IanB2 said:

not_on_fire said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...

Did you see that the leaders of the California and Texas successionist movements both attended a "succession" conference in Russian sponsors by the Russian government?

Secession?

MarqueeMark

AndyJS said:

O/T

Another massive data breach, including 5.2 million UK email addresses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/14/millions-exposed-by-hack-on-sex-hookup-website-adultfriendfinder/

There's gonna be a lot of worried fridge salesmen....

dr_spyn

POAWAS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKP91013

Might be a while before Hobart gets another Test Match.

not_on_fire

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

IanB2 said:

not_on_fire said:

IanB2 said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

I did 2012 by PR and Obama just edged over the line on 275 votes. The 2 votes for being a state means low population red states proportionally break heavily for the Republicans which still results in a low vote to ecv ratio.

Merge some of the smaller states together? Those with north and south in their names would seem to be a good place to start?

Well, geographically there should really be one "North East" state comprising of ME, CT, VT, RI, NH and perhaps MA. And DE should be part of MD or VA. But that would be disastrous for the Democrats so is never going to happen.

Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...

Did you see that the leaders of the California and Texas successionist movements both attended a "succession" conference in Russian sponsors by the Russian government?

Secession?

I'm guessing Crimea wasn't invited...

TwistedFireStopper

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

Is it just me who thinks that however much of a shocker his presidency might or might not be, Trump has more genuine international exposure than many recent POTUSs and including HRC.

Define "exposure"...

https://twitter.com/ericliptonnyt/status/798386072594083841

Maybe the Rust Belt derelict steel plants can start knocking out White House branded tat?

Bromptonaut

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

There are three Brexit delusions, not all held by the same people: 1. Brexit won't happen. 2. The EU will give us what we want. 3, the EU doesn't matter because Britain will be part of a new world order.

The first two delusions are falling away; the third is being clung to for the time being. Rather desperately so, judging by Mrs May's speech yesterday.

On the second delusion, an interesting Radio 4 Analysis last night. Politics will trump (no pun) economics, there is no appetite in EU member states for giving us a good deal.

Nul points nailed on in this year's Eurovision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082fjkh

Sandpit

A good article from Robert Colville on the polarisation of political opinion and discourse.

http://capx.co/should-we-like-what-facebook-is-doing-to-democracy/

TL:DR When all our friends, online and offline, think like we do, do we ever see - let alone try and understand - others who might think differently.

OldKingCole

dr_spyn said:

POAWAS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKP91013

Might be a while before Hobart gets another Test Match.

Aren't Zimbabwe due a tour?

SouthamObserver

not_on_fire said:

Sandpit said:

not_on_fire said:

Thought experiment: suppose the EU elected a president with a similar electoral college system to the US. Which countries would be the "swing states"? I guess the UK would be the equivalent of Texas...

That's an interesting exercise. It would be possible to win more than half the population from just the four largest states, assuming they split evenly then the key battlegrounds would be a little further down - Poland, Romania, Netherlands and Belgium. Spain is probably Florida.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_population

Thanks. As you say, there are far more "big states" in the EU than in the US, e.g. On a 538 vote system the UK would get about 65 EVs which is bigger than any US state, despite only having the third highest population. Germany would get over 80.

We already have a kind of electoral college format with the QMV system.

Pulpstar

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

Long term it looks to me like the North East will trend GOP.

So in 20 years time we might see a map like http://www.270towin.com/maps/6Ap6v

One thing I can't see happening is Florida losing it's bellwether status for a very very long time.

But I might be wrong on that.

SouthamObserver

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

They have only won the popular vote once since 1988.

The Reps have not won the popular vote without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.

What a great stat!

Sandpit

dr_spyn said:

POAWAS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/scorecard/ECKP91013

Might be a while before Hobart gets another Test Match.

LOL!!! The Saffers let them get 25 more runs first time out than England did last year though, but in their defence we were playing at home!

peter_from_putney

Alistair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

That's remarkable voting efficiency for Trump.

It looks like the Republicans led in voting for the House by about 3%, so there was some ticket-splitting.

What I take from that spreadsheet is that the relative value of a vote in California against most of the flyover states is why we have President elect Trump. Clinton won California by over 3m votes. But the rewards were more modest than they should be.

If all States allocated their EC votes proportionately, my estimate of the result is Trump 266, Clinton 265, Johnson 5, Stein and Mcmullin 1 each.

Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.

It comes down to every State having at least one Representative, plus equal representation in the Senate.

Hitherto, it's not been a problem as it hasn't favoured one party over the other. But, it would surely become a problem if the Republicans regularly won despite fewer votes nationwide.

They have only won the popular vote once since 1988.

The Reps have not won the popular vote without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since 1928.

Wiki states that:
In November 1984 Reagan was re-elected, winning 49 of 50 states. The president's overwhelming victory saw Mondale carry only his home state of Minnesota (by 3,800 votes) and the District of Columbia. Reagan won a record 525 electoral votes, the most of any candidate in United States history and received 59% of the popular vote to Mondale's 41%.

not_on_fire

Pulpstar said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

SouthamObserver said:

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Texas definitely seems to be moving towards battleground status.

What is the minimum number of states a candidate needs in order to win the presidential election?

11. CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, MI, NC, NJ. Those get you to 270.

Cheers. For the right Democrat they all look to be in play for 2020.

Long term it looks to me like the North East will trend GOP.

So in 20 years time we might see a map like http://www.270towin.com/maps/6Ap6v

One thing I can't see happening is Florida losing it's bellwether status for a very very long time.

But I might be wrong on that.

Your 2036 Rep total says "Trump" - are you assuming he's abolished the 22nd amendment (and the constitution) and declared himself Eternal President? ;-)

TOPPING

Bromptonaut said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

There are three Brexit delusions, not all held by the same people: 1. Brexit won't happen. 2. The EU will give us what we want. 3, the EU doesn't matter because Britain will be part of a new world order.

The first two delusions are falling away; the third is being clung to for the time being. Rather desperately so, judging by Mrs May's speech yesterday.

On the second delusion, an interesting Radio 4 Analysis last night. Politics will trump (no pun) economics, there is no appetite in EU member states for giving us a good deal.

Nul points nailed on in this year's Eurovision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082fjkh

No no no! While we have nobly and rightly placed sovereignty and emotion over economic well-being, the EU will, with their Teutonic efficiency, adhere strictly to economic law.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

Bromptonaut said:

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It seems that the EU negotiators don't share the Eurosceptic view that they have a weak hand:

https://twitter.com/ftbrussels/status/798383139378917376

No surprises there. If the EU is determined to act like the vindictive ex-wife happy to all the money go to lawyers, just so you can't keep any yourself, then we are better off out, out hard and out quickly.

Take the short term hit and be done with it, a brighter future awaits outside.

There are three Brexit delusions, not all held by the same people: 1. Brexit won't happen. 2. The EU will give us what we want. 3, the EU doesn't matter because Britain will be part of a new world order.

The first two delusions are falling away; the third is being clung to for the time being. Rather desperately so, judging by Mrs May's speech yesterday.

On the second delusion, an interesting Radio 4 Analysis last night. Politics will trump (no pun) economics, there is no appetite in EU member states for giving us a good deal.

Nul points nailed on in this year's Eurovision.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b082fjkh

Popbitch was saying last week that a song called "we're sorry that we left the EU" is attempting to be the British entry.

tlg86

AndyJS said:

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Report is doing a spreadsheet with the latest popular vote totals.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19

Since I last looked at that spreadsheet, Virginia has moved from being a swing state to being a non-swing state!