So, two new Iowa polls out today. They both show a similar pattern:
Biden and Warren are in front, and in the low to mid-20s.
Buttigieg is in the mid-teens.
One has Sanders in the teens; the other has Sanders on just 9%. Everyone else is single digit.
I think Buttigieg wins Iowa, temporarily tops the Democrat betting polls, but that Warren ends up with the nomination.
Buy Buttigieg as a trading bet.
Warren would be so the wrong choice. She isn't the personality to bring people together.
There are so many poor candidates in that field, it is hard to see one who is interesting, appealing and convincing.
Pete Buttigieg.
He led fundraising last quarter. He's tier one in Iowa.
A good result there (which he's probably going to get) will take him from 20-1 to 3-1. And if he wins Iowa, maybe he's the next POTUS.
What will it make his husband?
First Man OTUS ?
First Gentleman is the obvious equivalent to First Lady. But I think Buttigieg is going for VP. He would balance Warren nicely.
No one goes for VEEP. A veep is something that nods on a dashboard.
You do if you are an ambitious progressive Democrat from Indiana, who knows a statewide office is impossible. Veep 2020-2028 is a nice springboard for the Presidency in 2029.
"Britain will aim for freedom of movement deal with Australia
The proposal, which would allow British citizens to live and work in Australia visa-free, and vice-versa, was part of ongoing trade talks, she said."
Australia won’t want that. They manage their policy to direct immigrants away from Sydney and Melbourne, and won’t sign up to unrestricted free movement.
They have essentially unrestricted free movement with NZ already. I could see a deal with the UK being struck.
Why not with India ? or Nigeria ? Both are Commonwealth countries. Any idea ?
So, two new Iowa polls out today. They both show a similar pattern:
Biden and Warren are in front, and in the low to mid-20s.
Buttigieg is in the mid-teens.
One has Sanders in the teens; the other has Sanders on just 9%. Everyone else is single digit.
I think Buttigieg wins Iowa, temporarily tops the Democrat betting polls, but that Warren ends up with the nomination.
Buy Buttigieg as a trading bet.
Warren would be so the wrong choice. She isn't the personality to bring people together.
There are so many poor candidates in that field, it is hard to see one who is interesting, appealing and convincing.
Pete Buttigieg.
He led fundraising last quarter. He's tier one in Iowa.
A good result there (which he's probably going to get) will take him from 20-1 to 3-1. And if he wins Iowa, maybe he's the next POTUS.
What will it make his husband?
First Man OTUS ?
First Gentleman is the obvious equivalent to First Lady. But I think Buttigieg is going for VP. He would balance Warren nicely.
No one goes for VEEP. A veep is something that nods on a dashboard.
You do if you are an ambitious progressive Democrat from Indiana, who knows a statewide office is impossible. Veep 2020-2028 is a nice springboard for the Presidency in 2029.
"Britain will aim for freedom of movement deal with Australia
The proposal, which would allow British citizens to live and work in Australia visa-free, and vice-versa, was part of ongoing trade talks, she said."
Australia won’t want that. They manage their policy to direct immigrants away from Sydney and Melbourne, and won’t sign up to unrestricted free movement.
They have essentially unrestricted free movement with NZ already. I could see a deal with the UK being struck.
Why not with India ? or Nigeria ? Both are Commonwealth countries. Any idea ?
So, two new Iowa polls out today. They both show a similar pattern:
Biden and Warren are in front, and in the low to mid-20s.
Buttigieg is in the mid-teens.
One has Sanders in the teens; the other has Sanders on just 9%. Everyone else is single digit.
I think Buttigieg wins Iowa, temporarily tops the Democrat betting polls, but that Warren ends up with the nomination.
Buy Buttigieg as a trading bet.
Warren would be so the wrong choice. She isn't the personality to bring people together.
There are so many poor candidates in that field, it is hard to see one who is interesting, appealing and convincing.
Pete Buttigieg.
He led fundraising last quarter. He's tier one in Iowa.
A good result there (which he's probably going to get) will take him from 20-1 to 3-1. And if he wins Iowa, maybe he's the next POTUS.
What will it make his husband?
First Man OTUS ?
First Gentleman is the obvious equivalent to First Lady. But I think Buttigieg is going for VP. He would balance Warren nicely.
No one goes for VEEP. A veep is something that nods on a dashboard.
You do if you are an ambitious progressive Democrat from Indiana, who knows a statewide office is impossible. Veep 2020-2028 is a nice springboard for the Presidency in 2029.
"Britain will aim for freedom of movement deal with Australia
The proposal, which would allow British citizens to live and work in Australia visa-free, and vice-versa, was part of ongoing trade talks, she said."
Australia won’t want that. They manage their policy to direct immigrants away from Sydney and Melbourne, and won’t sign up to unrestricted free movement.
They have essentially unrestricted free movement with NZ already. I could see a deal with the UK being struck.
Why not with India ? or Nigeria ? Both are Commonwealth countries. Any idea ?
How low can Labour go before Corbyn is challenged (again).
18%? 16%?
Non YouGov polls would be needed, in the same way many partisans on the right ignore polls that aren't YouGov (e.g. Fiona Bruce) many partisans on the left ignore polls that are YouGov.
I tend to prefer the average of different pollsters as otherwise I'm picking and choosing what I like. I think that would have Labour maybe around 8-9% behind currently, before Johnson breaks his deadline promise (possibly) and whilst he could still be argued to either be in a honeymoon or the after effects of one. Given that, most Labour people would rather concentrate on beating Johnson. It isn't as if those attacking the party/leadership when we probably have an election coming soon are going to get much credit for it from Labour members who like Johnson about as much as you like Corbyn.
The one thing I’d argue you shouldn’t do is average polls. Note and observe the differences? Absolutely. Try to explain it and/or disregard some? Yes. But don’t average.
There was a discussion on here about averaging polls. I belong to the "don't average between *different* polls" camp, since the movement caused by house effects may be interpreted as an actual movement. Instead, I look at the movement between the same polls.
That’s a good point - a further weakness of averaging is that, if you just take all recent polls, the composition of your average in terms of different polling companies (and hence different methodologies and assumptions) is going to be changing all the time, creating false movement. If you are going to average it would be better to determine a basis - for example identify the five principal polling companies and take the most recent poll from each - and stick to it. The drawback here of course is that if one company doesn’t do a poll for a long time, you are stuck with some out of date data.
Of course, the relative populations of Aus and NZ are very similar to EU and UK
The reasons EU migration was so unpopular were:
- the Eurozone crisis sent a wave of immigrants our way, and at a time when the UK economy was hardly booming. Having people arrive when unemployment is elevated is not a recipe for domestic bliss
- EU immigrants not just being able to work, but also claim benefits. This is incredibly rare; other than UK-Ireland historically, I cannot think of a single example where foreigners can arrive in a country and have the same benefit entitlement as citizens.
- And perhaps least importantly, the big relative income differentials between Eastern Europe and the UK, which led to large waves as new countries entered the EU
What's astonishing, to me, is that despite these three factors, non-EU net-migration was barely less than EU net-migration in the last decade.
Supporters of the Union must be wondering why David Cameron couldn't keep his mouth shut about his private appeal for the Queen to "raise an eyebrow" against independence.
How low can Labour go before Corbyn is challenged (again).
18%? 16%?
Non YouGov polls would be needed, in the same way many partisans on the right ignore polls that aren't YouGov (e.g. Fiona Bruce) many partisans on the left ignore polls that are YouGov.
I tend to prefer the average of different pollsters as otherwise I'm picking and choosing what I like. I think that would have Labour maybe around 8-9% behind currently, before Johnson breaks his deadline promise (possibly) and whilst he could still be argued to either be in a honeymoon or the after effects of one. Given that, most Labour people would rather concentrate on beating Johnson. It isn't as if those attacking the party/leadership when we probably have an election coming soon are going to get much credit for it from Labour members who like Johnson about as much as you like Corbyn.
The one thing I’d argue you shouldn’t do is average polls. Note and observe the differences? Absolutely. Try to explain it and/or disregard some? Yes. But don’t average.
There was a discussion on here about averaging polls. I belong to the "don't average between *different* polls" camp, since the movement caused by house effects may be interpreted as an actual movement. Instead, I look at the movement between the same polls.
Might be more informative to work out the changes between polls for each pollster individually - within a set time fame - and then to calculate the averages of those.
- the Eurozone crisis sent a wave of immigrants our way, and at a time when the UK economy was hardly booming. Having people arrive when unemployment is elevated is not a recipe for domestic bliss
- EU immigrants not just being able to work, but also claim benefits. This is incredibly rare; other than UK-Ireland historically, I cannot think of a single example where foreigners can arrive in a country and have the same benefit entitlement as citizens.
- And perhaps least importantly, the big relative income differentials between Eastern Europe and the UK, which led to large waves as new countries entered the EU
What's astonishing, to me, is that despite these three factors, non-EU net-migration was barely less than EU net-migration in the last decade.
Everything you know (well, not you personally) about immigration and Brexit is wrong.
Austerity choked off the economic recovery inherited from Labour. Its effects on people's lives was wrongly ascribed to immigration from the EU.
This is why Brexit was popular in areas hardest hit economically but with little if any immigration.
Non-EU immigration, which the government could have limited, showed that the government had no real interest in limiting immigration, despite the rhetoric and Theresa May's red lines.
It is not possible for him to have arranged for his daughter to be seriously ill on the same date and time that Boris turned up on a publicity visit that he couldn't possibly have known about in advance.
Your conclusion is obviously gibberish and speaks poorly of you.
It is possible for his daughter to be ill, coincidentally find out that the PM is visiting the same hospital then for partisan reasons take the opportunity to ambush him which has presented itself before you though.
The father had a genuine reason to be in the hospital; Boris was there for publicity...
The original discussion came from a party (Labour) being at a certain percentage of support, if you were trying to figure that out rather than movement then either you average them all or you have some system for discounting certain pollsters or promoting others.
I don't like YouGov's figures but that really doesn't seem a good reason to discount them, pollsters seem to easily switch from having a great election to having a terrible one so picking a pollster that did well last time or avoiding one that did badly last time could easily make it worse. Basically I can't come up with any good method for picking and choosing between pollsters so if asked for a figure of support my best guess would be average of latest polls by different companies.
Although the levels of support can easily change in an election campaign anyway....
It all does depend what you’re using it for, but I have a simple brain and I think if it like this:
Suppose Party A is “really” at 40%. One poll has them at 40% and one at 20%.
Averaging to 30% doesn’t tell you a lot, though it limits you being as wrong as you could be if you just took the 20%.
On balance though, I think the better question is why there is a 20pt spread.
That’s a silly example but some of the variance we are seeing is, I think, too high to allow averages to make sense. All you’re doing is obscuring the anomalies.
Then use a trimmed mean which excludes the extreme observations aka anomolies.
So, two new Iowa polls out today. They both show a similar pattern:
Biden and Warren are in front, and in the low to mid-20s.
Buttigieg is in the mid-teens.
One has Sanders in the teens; the other has Sanders on just 9%. Everyone else is single digit.
I think Buttigieg wins Iowa, temporarily tops the Democrat betting polls, but that Warren ends up with the nomination.
Buy Buttigieg as a trading bet.
Warren would be so the wrong choice. She isn't the personality to bring people together.
There are so many poor candidates in that field, it is hard to see one who is interesting, appealing and convincing.
Pete Buttigieg.
He led fundraising last quarter. He's tier one in Iowa.
A good result there (which he's probably going to get) will take him from 20-1 to 3-1. And if he wins Iowa, maybe he's the next POTUS.
What will it make his husband?
First Man OTUS ?
First Gentleman is the obvious equivalent to First Lady. But I think Buttigieg is going for VP. He would balance Warren nicely.
No one goes for VEEP. A veep is something that nods on a dashboard.
You do if you are an ambitious progressive Democrat from Indiana, who knows a statewide office is impossible. Veep 2020-2028 is a nice springboard for the Presidency in 2029.
"Britain will aim for freedom of movement deal with Australia
The proposal, which would allow British citizens to live and work in Australia visa-free, and vice-versa, was part of ongoing trade talks, she said."
Australia won’t want that. They manage their policy to direct immigrants away from Sydney and Melbourne, and won’t sign up to unrestricted free movement.
They have essentially unrestricted free movement with NZ already. I could see a deal with the UK being struck.
It is not unrestricted free movement. You need to have and show a passport to go over the border. In the 70's all you needed was a boat or plane ticket. When the passport rule was introduced, a lot of people were suddenly on the "wrong side" without a passport.
Supporters of the Union must be wondering why David Cameron couldn't keep his mouth shut about his private appeal for the Queen to "raise an eyebrow" against independence.
The Queen has not been well-served by her recent Prime Ministers.
Comments
India: 1,324,171,354
Nigeria: 200,962,417
U.K.: 67,545,757
Australia: 24,511,800
New Zealand: 4,885,300
India: 1,324,171,354
Nigeria: 200,962,417
U.K.: 67,545,757
Australia: 24,511,800
New Zealand: 4,885,300
Of course, the relative populations of Aus and NZ are very similar to EU and UK
The reasons EU migration was so unpopular were:
- the Eurozone crisis sent a wave of immigrants our way, and at a time when the UK economy was hardly booming. Having people arrive when unemployment is elevated is not a recipe for domestic bliss
- EU immigrants not just being able to work, but also claim benefits. This is incredibly rare; other than UK-Ireland historically, I cannot think of a single example where foreigners can arrive in a country and have the same benefit entitlement as citizens.
- And perhaps least importantly, the big relative income differentials between Eastern Europe and the UK, which led to large waves as new countries entered the EU
What's astonishing, to me, is that despite these three factors, non-EU net-migration was barely less than EU net-migration in the last decade.
Austerity choked off the economic recovery inherited from Labour. Its effects on people's lives was wrongly ascribed to immigration from the EU.
This is why Brexit was popular in areas hardest hit economically but with little if any immigration.
Non-EU immigration, which the government could have limited, showed that the government had no real interest in limiting immigration, despite the rhetoric and Theresa May's red lines.
https://amp.economist.com/briefing/2019/09/12/the-economic-policy-at-the-heart-of-europe-is-creaking?__twitter_impression=true
Mr. Me, indeed. She's gone from Churchill to Boris Johnson.