politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Key state by key state looking in detail at how tomorrow’s bat

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Key state by key state looking in detail at how tomorrow’s battle for the Senate might go

One of the things about political betting is that for the most of the time there are not things that you can have a gamble on which you’re going to see results within a few days or weeks.

Read the full story here

rottenborough

First, like the Dems.

rottenborough

TX is 6th:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059165556883013632

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

CarlottaVance

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

justin124

FPT
Ydoethur said:
'It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 50 years since a Democratic senator was first elected to office in Texas - 1970. For most of Bentsen's time, the governorship also alternated between the two parties, and since 1968 it has only once voted Dem (and never since 1976).'

I believe that Ann Richards was elected Governor as late as 1990!

rottenborough

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

swing_voter

Great to hear David Butler on Radio 4 earlier, the original political-better,,,,,,I remember discussing seats in the early 90s with him, even then he was the king of this sort of spotting. Dacre comments very interesting esp about the BBC and gaps for rightwing broadcasters....perhaps this has already happened with Tommy Sheridan's move onto web-based messaging.

No idea about the US result, have a small flutter on a few Democrat gains

RobD

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

$2 billion dollars for the midterm elections? Utter insanity.

kle4

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Which is not the same as liking her. I hear very few actually positive things about her here in the deep blue shires even from definitive Tories, not leaver Tories or remainer Tories.

Its why I think that although she is tolerated or even still respected for trying her best in a difficult situation, she will swiftly go once a suitable transitionary point comes along, such as march next year.

kle4

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

$2 billion dollars for the midterm elections? Utter insanity.

It's hard to conceive of even in such a rich nation and even with such loose rules on political spending.

Thank gods we are spared that.

kle4

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

This is one of thedownsides of being a politics weirdo - sure we get things wrong all the time still, but after months and months of speculation a lot of the time there are fewer surprises than we think.

Nigelb

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

$2 billion dollars for the midterm elections? Utter insanity.

Tell that to the Supreme Court, who effectively declared that money is speech, and so made most campaign finance limits illegal under the 1st Amendment.

rkrkrk

FPT

viewcode said:

rkrkrk said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059145051555708928

I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"

I always found this a bit confusing in statistics. Is there a meaningful difference between your first sentence and your second with " according to our model" tacked on?

Yes there is such a meaningful difference.

Imagine a model. The model is a box with an imp inside it. The imp tosses a coin: if its heads he says "Cruz" and if its tails he says "Beto". The conscientious modeller runs 100,000 poll combinations thru it and after crunching the data says "the probability of Beto winning is 50%!". But that's obviously gibberish.

If the model accurately represents real-life, then the two sentences will line up (but still not mean the same thing!). If the model is inaccurate, then they'll deviate.

But if that modeler said, " the probability of Beto winning is 50% according to my model" I think that would be correct (except for the small error remaining after 100,000 combinations).

What's the difference between my sentence and yours? .
BTW thanks for explaining.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

This is one of thedownsides of being a politics weirdo - sure we get things wrong all the time still, but after months and months of speculation a lot of the time there are fewer surprises than we think.

The likely turnout has been a suprprise for many (including HYUFD), which is why Mike has a fair chance of making a rather large return on his spread bet.

Nigelb

rkrkrk said:

FPT

viewcode said:

rkrkrk said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059145051555708928

I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"

I always found this a bit confusing in statistics. Is there a meaningful difference between your first sentence and your second with " according to our model" tacked on?

Yes there is such a meaningful difference.

Imagine a model. The model is a box with an imp inside it. The imp tosses a coin: if its heads he says "Cruz" and if its tails he says "Beto". The conscientious modeller runs 100,000 poll combinations thru it and after crunching the data says "the probability of Beto winning is 50%!". But that's obviously gibberish.

If the model accurately represents real-life, then the two sentences will line up (but still not mean the same thing!). If the model is inaccurate, then they'll deviate.

But if that modeler said, " the probability of Beto winning is 50% according to my model" I think that would be correct (except for the small error remaining after 100,000 combinations).

What's the difference between my sentence and yours? .
BTW thanks for explaining.

But the interesting detail of the 538 model is just how many different ways there are for the Democrats to win the House, thanks to the very large number of Republican seats which are competitive. For the Republicans to hold on, it would require a systematic error across the country, and voting at the Congressionla level is far less correlated, and subject to considerably more local effects, than that in a presidential or even senate election.

rkrkrk

Nigelb said:

But the interesting detail of the 538 model is just how many different ways there are for the Democrats to win the House, thanks to the very large number of Republican seats which are competitive. For the Republicans to hold on, it would require a systematic error across the country, and voting at the Congressionla level is far less correlated, and subject to considerably more local effects, than that in a presidential or even senate election.

I think you're talking about something different - I'm just interested in clearing up something I never understood from statistical classes!

I agree with what you say, but I think you might be underestimating the possibility of a systemic error (albeit I think it's probably more likely such an error would favour the Dems rather than Republicans).

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that one/both sides might vote a bit differently to a 'normal' mid-term, and I think it will be hard for pollsters to correct for that.

We've seen several big outliers in special elections, and Trump is a unique factor. Last time non-voters came out in unexpected numbers (I think that's the current explanation for Trump's massive overperformance in certain states.

ydoethur

justin124 said:

FPT
Ydoethur said:
'It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 50 years since a Democratic senator was first elected to office in Texas - 1970. For most of Bentsen's time, the governorship also alternated between the two parties, and since 1968 it has only once voted Dem (and never since 1976).'

I believe that Ann Richards was elected Governor as late as 1990!

My tablet swallowed the words 'in a presidential election' after the '1976.' Richards was one of the alternating Dem/Rep governors in Bentsen's time (which ended in 1993) that I was thinking of.

Casino_Royale

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

+1

Casino_Royale

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

FPT

viewcode said:

rkrkrk said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1059145051555708928

I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"

I always found this a bit confusing in statistics. Is there a meaningful difference between your first sentence and your second with " according to our model" tacked on?

Yes there is such a meaningful difference.

Imagine a model. The model is a box with an imp inside it. The imp tosses a coin: if its heads he says "Cruz" and if its tails he says "Beto". The conscientious modeller runs 100,000 poll combinations thru it and after crunching the data says "the probability of Beto winning is 50%!". But that's obviously gibberish.

If the model accurately represents real-life, then the two sentences will line up (but still not mean the same thing!). If the model is inaccurate, then they'll deviate.

But if that modeler said, " the probability of Beto winning is 50% according to my model" I think that would be correct (except for the small error remaining after 100,000 combinations).

What's the difference between my sentence and yours? .
BTW thanks for explaining.

But the interesting detail of the 538 model is just how many different ways there are for the Democrats to win the House, thanks to the very large number of Republican seats which are competitive. For the Republicans to hold on, it would require a systematic error across the country, and voting at the Congressionla level is far less correlated, and subject to considerably more local effects, than that in a presidential or even senate election.

My gut instinct tells me the Dems will take the House fairly easily, but I don’t trust the US polls enough to bet significantly on it.

I expect to look rather silly on Wednesday.

williamglenn

Support for a binary referendum between the deal and Remain eclipses the other options.

https://twitter.com/survation/status/1059236066975199233?s=21

OldKingCole

kle4 said:

RobD said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1059216861915688963

As Niall Ferguson said in the Times today Trump's approval rating is 43%, in the 9 midterms when a President's approval rating was below 50% his party lost an average of 37 seats and the Democrats need 23 for a majority.

Since 1950 the winning party has never trailed by more than 4.5% in the week of a mid-term, the GOP currently trail by 8.5%.

Democrats also lead in fundraising by $1 billion to $700 million for the GOP, in 2010 the average GOP challenger to an incumbent had double the donations of the average Democratic challenger, this year Democratic challengers have 7 times more money than Republican ones.

In the Senate though the Democrats are defending 26 states, 10 in states won by Trump, to just 9 GOP defences making it the most skewed Senate election since 1938.

Hence all the signs are the Democrats will take the House but the GOP will hold the Senate

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-democrat-win-neednt-spell-disaster-for-donald-trump-3gn9l0rq3

$2 billion dollars for the midterm elections? Utter insanity.

It's hard to conceive of even in such a rich nation and even with such loose rules on political spending.

Thank gods we are spared that.

Er........ are you sure?????

MarqueeMark

Casino_Royale said:

My gut instinct tells me the Dems will take the House fairly easily, but I don’t trust the US polls enough to bet significantly on it.

I expect to look rather silly on Wednesday.

Trump is clearly an extaordinarily divisive figure in the US as much as he is abroad. Registering your views on him is a driver for those who really despair of the direction the US took in 2016.

But....the recent US wage growth figures were strong. By most every measure, people are better off than they were two years ago when they voted for Trump:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-you-better-off-economy-midterm-elections/

Are the American public really in a mood to vote against what their wallets are telling them? It's possible that many are happy enough at state and local level - why blame the guy who is helping me do OK? If they are in an ornery mood, though, and boot out their sitting representatives on the back of impressive economic news, then that will be the measure of how much trouble Trump is in come 2020....

Nigelb

BBC report on the midterms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748

The interesting bit for me was that the Republicans haven’t had a lead in the generic ballot from 1982 to the present date. Which perhaps gives a clue about who benefits most from gerrymandering...

Roger

When doing an A Level in British Constitution as a sixteen year old my favourite text book was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondell. It was the most readable by far and included such oddities as the 'deferential working class voter' who voted Tory because they believed they were born to rule.

It's one of the things I most enjoy about Mike's headers. Intriguining voting behaviour questions like 'What attracts non college educated women and working class men to a six times bankrupt multi squillionaire misogynist with inherited wealth?

MarqueeMark

Roger said:

When doing an A Level in British Constitution as a sixteen year old my favourite text book was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondell.

I got mine signed by Maggie!

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Glenn, cheers for that summary.

An interesting finding. Given May's deal seems to be an utter capitulation, the ongoing turf war will certainly be fought by 'real' Leavers, and perhaps by Remainers too.

daodao

williamglenn said:

Support for a binary referendum between the deal and Remain eclipses the other options.

https://twitter.com/survation/status/1059236066975199233?s=21

The most appropriate referendum would have 3 options - the deal, no deal and remain - run along FPTP lines.

daodao

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

malcolmg

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:

Among other predictions, he said the UK would soon the see the rise of rightwing TV broadcasters to fill the gap left by the BBC, that Theresa May would lead the Conservatives into the next general election, that tech companies that provide “succour to terrorists and paedophiles” would soon be broken up, and that print newspapers would be here to stay for some time.

Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Does not make her any less crap unfortunately.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/Cartoon4sale/status/1059189764396666880

MikeSmithson

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

Because this is a big politicalbetting event and that is the name on the tin

philiph

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

There may be a cohort of individuals placing money on the possible outcomes in the hopes of increasing the money they use as a stake.

Or betting on politics.

Roger

MarqueeMark said:

Roger said:

When doing an A Level in British Constitution as a sixteen year old my favourite text book was 'Voters Parties and Leaders' by Blondell.

I got mine signed by Maggie!

When I was at college that would have been a very untrendy signature to get though it's probaly worth a fortune!

MarqueeMark

daodao said:

williamglenn said:

Support for a binary referendum between the deal and Remain eclipses the other options.

https://twitter.com/survation/status/1059236066975199233?s=21

The most appropriate referendum would have 3 options - the deal, no deal and remain - run along FPTP lines.

The most appropriate response to that is piss off, losers....

Foxy

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

There is more to government than POTUS making decrees. Also, as Mike points out the only political betting event on the horizon.

It is a good video, albeit forecasting stasis, but it wouldn't take much in those swing states for the Republicans to lose the Senate. Quite a few slender leads vulnerable to small systematic errors, for example on differential turnout.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

Foxy

MarqueeMark said:

daodao said:

williamglenn said:

Support for a binary referendum between the deal and Remain eclipses the other options.

https://twitter.com/survation/status/1059236066975199233?s=21

The most appropriate referendum would have 3 options - the deal, no deal and remain - run along FPTP lines.

The most appropriate response to that is piss off, losers....

Survation has done a 20 000 person regression study too.

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1059352368687599617?s=19

MarqueeMark

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

DavidL

Interesting if ultimately equivocal article about Florida in the Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/11/04/floridas-2018-election-is-a-game-changer/

Among the stats is that young voters make up a majority in Fl this time and amongst the youngest whites are a minority. What is also very noticeable is how important Trump may prove to be in the very close races for Senator and governor. Like a lot of America Fl has been doing rather well since his election.

One final point is that like Beto in Texas the Dems seem to have gone for much more full on liberal candidates than the traditional moderates appealing to swing voters. Such a policy may help with motivating their base but what will those independents do? I think that the Dems risk being found to have been a little self indulgent in their selections after the event.

TOPPING

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

My gut instinct tells me the Dems will take the House fairly easily, but I don’t trust the US polls enough to bet significantly on it.

I expect to look rather silly on Wednesday.

Trump is clearly an extaordinarily divisive figure in the US as much as he is abroad. Registering your views on him is a driver for those who really despair of the direction the US took in 2016.

But....the recent US wage growth figures were strong. By most every measure, people are better off than they were two years ago when they voted for Trump:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-you-better-off-economy-midterm-elections/

Are the American public really in a mood to vote against what their wallets are telling them? It's possible that many are happy enough at state and local level - why blame the guy who is helping me do OK? If they are in an ornery mood, though, and boot out their sitting representatives on the back of impressive economic news, then that will be the measure of how much trouble Trump is in come 2020....

Plus all the academic papers on why tariffs are bad don’t make a damn of a difference if you’ve just got a job at a newly reopened steelworks.

NickPalmer

malcolmg said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:


Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Does not make her any less crap unfortunately.

I think she's doing her best too, and her spin operation is underrated - the country is now pretty convinced that "No deal" is a bad idea, and opponents have not really explained that there is a difference between"No deal and basic trade relations" (likely if talks fail) and "No deal AT ALL" (planes stop flying, food shortages, etc. - of course not). That's why I think she'll get any old deal through Parliament.

However, if you asked the same people "Do you think she's a good PM?" you might get a different answer.

TOPPING

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

May caving it is then.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, I must concur. May's twin approach of prevarication and capitulation is unlikely to change now.

Alistair

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

My gut instinct tells me the Dems will take the House fairly easily, but I don’t trust the US polls enough to bet significantly on it.

I expect to look rather silly on Wednesday.

Trump is clearly an extaordinarily divisive figure in the US as much as he is abroad. Registering your views on him is a driver for those who really despair of the direction the US took in 2016.

But....the recent US wage growth figures were strong. By most every measure, people are better off than they were two years ago when they voted for Trump:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-you-better-off-economy-midterm-elections/

Are the American public really in a mood to vote against what their wallets are telling them? It's possible that many are happy enough at state and local level - why blame the guy who is helping me do OK? If they are in an ornery mood, though, and boot out their sitting representatives on the back of impressive economic news, then that will be the measure of how much trouble Trump is in come 2020....

The increases are not evenly spread. The rust belt is not getting that money sprinkled on it, they are still seeing factory closures and jobs going abroad.

Edit: just read the entirety of that 'article' . What a lot of cherry picked bollocks.

DavidL

Wednesday is unfortunately a work day for me with a fairly early court appearance. Does anyone know when we are likely to start getting meaningful results in on Tuesday night?

SquareRoot

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

May caving it is then.

HOW UNFULL IS YOUR GLASS?

SquareRoot

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, I must concur. May's twin approach of prevarication and capitulation is unlikely to change now.

So much negativity and its only 8.15am..

HYUFD

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

Technically the House of Representatives and the Senate are part of the government even if it may not change the President. Congress is the legislative branch of government and the President the executive branch of government, in UK terms if the Democrats take the House tomorrow it will be the equivalent of Labour taking the House of Commons if we had a Tory President rather than the Queen as Head of State

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

MarqueeMark

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

May caving it is then.

Who in the House of Commons will vote for a position that allows the EU the whip hand on the backstop? Not the ERG...not Labour.....

No Deal it is then.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No surprise there but May is effectively committing the whole UK to staying in the Customs Union indefinitely until the Irish border issue has been resolved.

Hence the ERG will vote against and are so anti this proposed deal, in the words of one the future economic relationship for the UK position paper 'may be worthless'

Alistair

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

Because this is a website about betting on politics!

I know this place is stuffed full of bullshiters who don't actually bet on politics but this is taking the biscuit.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

BBC report on the midterms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748

The interesting bit for me was that the Republicans haven’t had a lead in the generic ballot from 1982 to the present date. Which perhaps gives a clue about who benefits most from gerrymandering...

Wrong, the GOP led in 1994, 2002, 2004, 2010 and 2014 in the House popular vote

MarqueeMark

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

AlastairMeeks

Some tweets require further explanation. Some, I fear, are incapable of further explanation:

https://twitter.com/dianabutlerbass/status/1058950301271486465

not_on_fire

DavidL said:

Interesting if ultimately equivocal article about Florida in the Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/11/04/floridas-2018-election-is-a-game-changer/

Among the stats is that young voters make up a majority in Fl this time and amongst the youngest whites are a minority. What is also very noticeable is how important Trump may prove to be in the very close races for Senator and governor. Like a lot of America Fl has been doing rather well since his election.

One final point is that like Beto in Texas the Dems seem to have gone for much more full on liberal candidates than the traditional moderates appealing to swing voters. Such a policy may help with motivating their base but what will those independents do? I think that the Dems risk being found to have been a little self indulgent in their selections after the event.

Turning out the base is key to success in the midterms.

HYUFD

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

May caving it is then.

Who in the House of Commons will vote for a position that allows the EU the whip hand on the backstop? Not the ERG...not Labour.....

No Deal it is then.

Even Corbyn's aide Andrew Murray has said Labour would back the Withdrawal Agreement if it keeps the UK in the Customs Union which May's plan effectively does and most Tory MPs voted Remain and will also back the Deal. We know Labour MPs like Nandy and Flint and the odd LD like Stephen Lloyd have also said they will back the Deal. As it covers the whole UK the DUP may also back it.

So it will pass the Commons with ERG and a few Labour Leavers like Hoey voting against as well as the SNP, the LDs, Labour pro single market and Tory single market diehards like Umunna and Soubry also opposed

MikeSmithson

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

Which quite a number of LB MPs are likely to do.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, May will. Labour would.

Almost any deal May got is likely to have very significant and probably victorious support in the Commons.

Mr. Meeks, as indicated in this post already, I agree with that. It'll mean more and deepening division in the years ahead, resolves nothing, satisfies no-one, but it gets May off the hook and saves her from having to leave without a deal. She'll throw a hospital pass and let her successor(s) take the pain.

SouthamObserver

I expect the Republicans to do pretty well. I suspect that there are a lot of silent Trumpists across the US outside the big cities and that a lot of them will turn out to vote. Gerrymandering should do the rest.

FF43

NickPalmer said:

malcolmg said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:


Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Does not make her any less crap unfortunately.

I think she's doing her best too, and her spin operation is underrated - the country is now pretty convinced that "No deal" is a bad idea, and opponents have not really explained that there is a difference between"No deal and basic trade relations" (likely if talks fail) and "No deal AT ALL" (planes stop flying, food shortages, etc. - of course not). That's why I think she'll get any old deal through Parliament.

However, if you asked the same people "Do you think she's a good PM?" you might get a different answer.

The British have not so far accepted that Brexit negotiations are entirely about damage limitation where the result is guaranteed to be worse than what we had before, the only question being how much worse. They don't think they voted to make things worse, obviously.

Alistair

Nigelb said:

BBC report on the midterms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748

The interesting bit for me was that the Republicans haven’t had a lead in the generic ballot from 1982 to the present date. Which perhaps gives a clue about who benefits most from gerrymandering...

That chart is a load of bollocks. There's been plenty of times the GOP has lead the generic ballot.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, on the billboard, that reminds me of the news last night. Trump looked really orange. Weirdly, Wotsit-skinned orange. His ears and around his eyes were normal in hue. It was really quite odd. Even by Trumpian standards.

Alistair

SouthamObserver said:

I expect the Republicans to do pretty well. I suspect that there are a lot of silent Trumpists across the US outside the big cities and that a lot of them will turn out to vote. Gerrymandering should do the rest.

I don't buy silent Trumpets, the national popular vote polling was pretty good in 2016.

Maybe they are silent in, say, wisconsin but nationally they seem to be well accounted for.

kle4

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

Elections are inherently interesting, they have a large series of them in one day and it's the world's superpower.

AndyJS

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

I still find that hard to believe but I hope enough do. Time to move to the next phase.

AndyJS

daodao said:

Why is there such an obsession with the US midterm elections? The USA is a foreign country and the outcome won't change the government there.

There ought to be an obsession with it on a site like this! Do you mean elsewhere?

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, May will. Labour would.

Almost any deal May got is likely to have very significant and probably victorious support in the Commons.

Mr. Meeks, as indicated in this post already, I agree with that. It'll mean more and deepening division in the years ahead, resolves nothing, satisfies no-one, but it gets May off the hook and saves her from having to leave without a deal. She'll throw a hospital pass and let her successor(s) take the pain.

Well if she cannot get anything else through and they will throw things into even more chaos than go for no deal quietly, that might be the best that is achievable.

HYUFD

Boris says Brexit was about 'taking back control' and May's 'appalling deal' will 'hand control to Brussels' and will see control lost 'for ever and not just for Christmas' as he and Mogg and Davis and the ERG lead the revolt to her Customs Union plan

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1059340776415600640

Dura_Ace

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

Not enough Labour MPs share the ERG's niche fetish that Brexit is a redemptive crusade that requires a moral reforging of the nation through (unequally) shared hardship.

I wish I had a euro for every time somebody has posted "No deal it is then." in the last two years.

Nigelb

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

My gut instinct tells me the Dems will take the House fairly easily, but I don’t trust the US polls enough to bet significantly on it.

I expect to look rather silly on Wednesday.

Trump is clearly an extaordinarily divisive figure in the US as much as he is abroad. Registering your views on him is a driver for those who really despair of the direction the US took in 2016.

But....the recent US wage growth figures were strong. By most every measure, people are better off than they were two years ago when they voted for Trump:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/are-you-better-off-economy-midterm-elections/

Are the American public really in a mood to vote against what their wallets are telling them? It's possible that many are happy enough at state and local level - why blame the guy who is helping me do OK? If they are in an ornery mood, though, and boot out their sitting representatives on the back of impressive economic news, then that will be the measure of how much trouble Trump is in come 2020....

The increases are not evenly spread. The rust belt is not getting that money sprinkled on it, they are still seeing factory closures and jobs going abroad.

Edit: just read the entirety of that 'article' . What a lot of cherry picked bollocks.

Some of Trump's most touted successes on the economic front aren't particularly popular:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/did-scott-walker-and-donald-trump-deal-away-the-governors-race-to-foxconn

Anazina

HYUFD said:

Boris says May's 'appalling deal' will see control lost 'for ever and not just for Christmas' as he and Mogg and Davis lead the revolt to her Customs Union plan

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1059340776415600640

Johnson is a moron. Rees is a twerp.

AlastairMeeks

I agree with the comments made yesterday by @Alistair (great name, unfortunate spelling) that it's impossible to work out what is going on because of the impact of the greatly increased turnout on the models. Everyone will be sure to be putting on votes. However, what's important is not how many votes you rack up but how many you rack up relative to your main opponent. The Democrats might (might) be making the same mistake that the Conservatives made in 2017 by not noticing how their opponents were doing.

Or then again, the increased turnout might simply be benefiting the Democrats. Put a gun to my head and I'd guess the latter, but it would be a guess.

Nigelb

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

BBC report on the midterms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748

The interesting bit for me was that the Republicans haven’t had a lead in the generic ballot from 1982 to the present date. Which perhaps gives a clue about who benefits most from gerrymandering...

That chart is a load of bollocks. There's been plenty of times the GOP has lead the generic ballot.

At the midterms ?

AndyJS

Every time I look at this page the number of toss-up House districts has increased:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/house/2018_elections_house_map.html

geoffw

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Boris says May's 'appalling deal' will see control lost 'for ever and not just for Christmas' as he and Mogg and Davis lead the revolt to her Customs Union plan

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1059340776415600640

Johnson is a moron. Rees is a twerp.

Profound comment.

TOPPING

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1059349074183372800?s=21

No Deal it is then.....

May caving it is then.

Who in the House of Commons will vote for a position that allows the EU the whip hand on the backstop? Not the ERG...not Labour.....

No Deal it is then.

Bollocks. Watch the webels cave as they line up to vote for the deal

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, her own prevarication and capitulation, adopting tactics but not strategy (as Mr. Meeks said), is to blame.

Like a woman who's mined herself into a tiny hillock's summit in the midst of a vast minefield, pitching her tent and declaring that is her home now might be better than wandering through the minefield, but it's still her damned fault she's there.

On the other hand, the constant putting off of decisions, the refusal to seek democratic consent, the triangulating politics of saying sceptical things to curry public favour whilst conducting pro-EU actions in office, the failure to even attempt to make the case for the EU, all these things have been political failures over the last few decades.

I wonder if the UK political class is akin to the Lib Dems in Coalition. By arguing they're a brake rather than an engine* on The Project they receive no credit for any advantages, and all the blame for not preventing undesirable aspects.

*I forget who coined that term, but it's a good one.

MarqueeMark

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

I still find that hard to believe but I hope enough do. Time to move to the next phase.

It's the biggest issue for me around Brexit. Will Corbyn sink any negotiated outcome, blaming May for "a deal the UK should not and cannot accept" - as his road-map to an election? If so, will it backfire - and Labour own any resulting No Deal?

hamiltonace

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

malcolmg said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:


Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Does not make her any less crap unfortunately.

I think she's doing her best too, and her spin operation is underrated - the country is now pretty convinced that "No deal" is a bad idea, and opponents have not really explained that there is a difference between"No deal and basic trade relations" (likely if talks fail) and "No deal AT ALL" (planes stop flying, food shortages, etc. - of course not). That's why I think she'll get any old deal through Parliament.

However, if you asked the same people "Do you think she's a good PM?" you might get a different answer.

The British have not so far accepted that Brexit negotiations are entirely about damage limitation where the result is guaranteed to be worse than what we had before, the only question being how much worse. They don't think they voted to make things worse, obviously.

It is in the end the leavers who have failed to create a sensible narrative to convince the country the future will be better. TM gave the leavers the opportunity to negotiate a good deal and they spectacularly failed. Now damage limitation is all that is left.

As leavers say you should respect the voters. The voters have sat and watched and not been impressed. A Swiss solution appears to be looming except outside Schengen and inside the customs union.

HYUFD

AndyJS said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.

The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.

Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.

Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown

TOPPING

hamiltonace said:

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

malcolmg said:

rottenborough said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dacre:


Dacre said there was an ever-growing gap between London-based journalists and the views of the general public. He said: “They aren’t obsessing over #MeToo, or transgender rights, or equal pay for BBC journalists. And they do like Mrs May and think she’s doing a job in difficult circumstances.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/04/paul-dacre-ex-daily-mail-liberal-brexit-hating-media-speech?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

My intelligence, via extended family and friends from the boondocks, is that the latter point is correct. Out in the counties, away from the metro and uni cities, May is seen as doing her best in a difficult and troubled situation.

Does not make her any less crap unfortunately.

I think she's doing her best too, and her spin operation is underrated - the country is now pretty convinced that "No deal" is a bad idea, and opponents have not really explained that there is a difference between"No deal and basic trade relations" (likely if talks fail) and "No deal AT ALL" (planes stop flying, food shortages, etc. - of course not). That's why I think she'll get any old deal through Parliament.

However, if you asked the same people "Do you think she's a good PM?" you might get a different answer.

The British have not so far accepted that Brexit negotiations are entirely about damage limitation where the result is guaranteed to be worse than what we had before, the only question being how much worse. They don't think they voted to make things worse, obviously.

It is in the end the leavers who have failed to create a sensible narrative to convince the country the future will be better. TM gave the leavers the opportunity to negotiate a good deal and they spectacularly failed. Now damage limitation is all that is left.

As leavers say you should respect the voters. The voters have sat and watched and not been impressed. A Swiss solution appears to be looming except outside Schengen and inside the customs union.

Agree - Leavers are back at the pure socialism great idea badly implemented line.

AndyJS

Turnout in America is difficult to calculate sometimes because it depends whether you use the number of people registed to vote or the voting age population. In a lot of states, particularly in the south and west, there's a massive difference between the two, with millions of residents not registered to vote. For example in 2016 in California, the number of registered voters was 19 million, while the population was 39 million. The number of adults was 25 million, so 6 million people weren't registered to vote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&datatype=national&def=vto&f=0&off=0&elect=0
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/citizen_voting_age_population/cb16-tps18_california.html

MarqueeMark

hamiltonace said:

TM gave the leavers the opportunity to negotiate a good deal....

When the diaries come out, this oft-stated position will require some significant revision.

Anazina

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Republicans hold the House tomorrow. I always thought talk of an easy Democrat win was a bit overblown.

The latest House poll has the Democrats ahead by 8% ie exactly the same popular vote lead as the GOP had in 2010 the last time the House changed hands.

Trump's approval rating is 43%, the average gain for an opposition party since WW2 with a President' s approval rating under 50% has been 37 House seats ie clearly above the 23 they need for control.

Talk of a Democratic landslide has been overblown but your puffing up the GOP holding the House is also overblown

Fair post. And good for you nailing your colours to the mast.

Andy and Southam should call a GOP win if they think that. Posts of the ‘I wouldn’t be surprised’ nature mean they cannot be wrong.

Anazina

Dura_Ace said:

MarqueeMark said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Root, *raises an eyebrow*

If you could show me past evidence or present reason to have confidence in May, I'd be delighted to see it.

My prediction at the end of last year was:

"Theresa May is using tactics without strategy. Politically, that serves her quite well, even if it isn’t good for the country. Despite caving in on more or less everything, the media coverage of her initial deal was excellent and her opponents on all sides were discomfited. Aside from a few rumblings from those Leavers whose preferred version of Brexit would be tectonic, she carried all before her at home.

We can expect to see the same trick repeated. Since the government has no strategy and no deal is worse than a bad deal, a bad deal will be done, substantially on the EU’s terms. This time the risk of hardliners opposing the deal will be much greater. There seems, however, to be a majority in the House of Commons for a bad deal. So I expect that a bad deal will be done and Theresa May will again look like a winner.

Much of the year will be taken up with alarums, excursions and brouhahas on the Brexit negotiations. We should ignore them all. We won’t."

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/27/alastair-meeks-and-his-predictions-for-2018/

I'm still feeling ok about that one.

That requires Labour to vote for a bad deal.....

Not enough Labour MPs share the ERG's niche fetish that Brexit is a redemptive crusade that requires a moral reforging of the nation through (unequally) shared hardship.

I wish I had a euro for every time somebody has posted "No deal it is then." in the last two years.

One of the most irritating PB mini memes, up there with ‘first like Mrs May’, ‘colour me xxx’ and ‘oh wait’.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, socialism is currently causing famine in Venezuela, and Stalin's reign included 20 million deaths at his order.

We haven't even tried to leave the EU once, and May has, almost all would agree, made an utter hash of her 'negotiation'. The two are not comparable.

DecrepitJohnL

Anazina said:

HYUFD said:

Boris says May's 'appalling deal' will see control lost 'for ever and not just for Christmas' as he and Mogg and Davis lead the revolt to her Customs Union plan

https://mobile.twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1059340776415600640

Johnson is a moron. Rees is a twerp.

Jacob Rees-Mogg predicted we'd be a trillion quid better off on WTO terms. This is different from Boris or Davis who just have a vague idea the EU is imperfect in some way.

If we take the difference between the Project Fear claims of economic devastation if we leave, against JRM's sunlit uplands, it is clear that we are talking about swings of hundreds of billions of pounds a year on Conservative deals. This, oddly, is rarely debated, even by those who have a fit of the vapours at the far lower costs of Jezza's plans to nationalise manhole covers and send small children to work on allotments.

Bromptonaut

MarqueeMark said:

hamiltonace said:

TM gave the leavers the opportunity to negotiate a good deal....

When the diaries come out, this oft-stated position will require some significant revision.

By which time we’ll be living in the United Kingdom of Englandandwales.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, socialism is currently causing famine in Venezuela, and Stalin's reign included 20 million deaths at his order.

We haven't even tried to leave the EU once, and May has, almost all would agree, made an utter hash of her 'negotiation'. The two are not comparable.

It was an impossible ask, Morris, whoever had been at the helm.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, socialism is currently causing famine in Venezuela, and Stalin's reign included 20 million deaths at his order.

We haven't even tried to leave the EU once, and May has, almost all would agree, made an utter hash of her 'negotiation'. The two are not comparable.

Theresa May's parameters were set by the campaign fought by Leave. The seeds of disaster were sown in that campaign. Theresa May has played a poor hand badly but there was no scope to get a good result to start off with.

Wulfrun_Phil

AndyJS said:

Turnout in America is difficult to calculate sometimes because it depends whether you use the number of people registed to vote or the voting age population. In a lot of states, particularly in the south and west, there's a massive difference between the two, with millions of residents not registered to vote. For example in 2016 in California, the number of registered voters was 19 million, while the population was 39 million. The number of adults was 25 million, so 6 million people weren't registered to vote.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&datatype=national&def=vto&f=0&off=0&elect=0
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2016/comm/citizen_voting_age_population/cb16-tps18_california.html

Turnout in the UK is even more difficult to calculate because the ONS fail to publish figures for the voting age population for each parliamentary constituency. So we just maintain the fiction that turnout is a % of the population that registers to vote.

Nigelb

Nigelb said:

Alistair said:

Nigelb said:

BBC report on the midterms:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45013748

The interesting bit for me was that the Republicans haven’t had a lead in the generic ballot from 1982 to the present date. Which perhaps gives a clue about who benefits most from gerrymandering...

That chart is a load of bollocks. There's been plenty of times the GOP has lead the generic ballot.

At the midterms ?

With a bit of effort, it's possible to check that, and you are right that it doesn't seem correct, although 'bollocks' is possibly putting it a bit too strong.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2014.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/2010.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/2002.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/1998.htm

http://www.pewresearch.org/2006/10/26/are-national-polls-reliable-predictors-of-midterm-elections/
For example, in 1994 both the Pew and Gallup surveys found a Republican majority in the popular vote for the first time in more than 40 years, foreshadowing that year’s GOP takeover of the House…

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, not the case. May's failure is of her own making. Nobody make her create and abandon red lines, nor was she compelled to agree to the idiotic EU schedule, nor to submit to the idea of a backstop.

Even triggering Article 50 before she was ready was her mistake, as was calling a needless election and throwing away a 20 point lead.

SquareRoot

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, not the case. May's failure is of her own making. Nobody make her create and abandon red lines, nor was she compelled to agree to the idiotic EU schedule, nor to submit to the idea of a backstop.

Even triggering Article 50 before she was ready was her mistake, as was calling a needless election and throwing away a 20 point lead.

the 20 pt lead never existed imho. it was polling bullshit

Nigelb

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, socialism is currently causing famine in Venezuela...

While I would be last to defend the Venezuelan regime, which I'd agree has been a disaster for the country, it's only fair to note that their troubles have been significantly exacerbated over the last few years by US sanctions.

rkrkrk

Weather update for the midterms: https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/potent-storm-to-strike-states-with-key-races-in-2018-midterm-elections/70006523

I don't know how far I believe some of this analysis, I'm sure weather has an impact, but statements like this make me suspicious:

"Cloudy conditions and windy weather deter voters in West Virginia, especially voters aged 25 to 44," according to Loftus. "However, Democrats are less impacted by wind than Republicans and tend to fair better with higher-sustained wind speeds."