Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With five months to go how the US is dividing on the next Pres

124

Comments

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    edited July 2020

    Following interest shown in presenting local data -

    England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.

    Colour starts at 5 cases per day.

    Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.



    You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.

    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,358
    It is going to be years of toil and disappointment no matter who runs HMG

    I note that 300,000 people in Melbourne have gone into lockdown today

    It is neverending suffering for millions and hard to comprehend
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    edited July 2020

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hmm, the Economist model is showing Biden with a 98% chance of winning the popular vote.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?

    Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
    Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
    Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
    Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
    My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
    I think there is a difference between being personally loud with friends and telling a pollster your view. Anecdotally, I would say there are a fair few people in the States who believe that "the Government" is looking at your data and they tend to be more on the Trump end of things. If you have that view, chances are you are likely to be suspicious about answering a pollster.
    Hmmmm....as likely as not to work the other way round? This is indulging in guesswork. I expect most polls to be right within their MOE. They usually are.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    kle4 said:

    malcolmg said:

    alex_ said:

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    So first Keir Starmer and now the Premier League distance themselves from BLM.. and I'm the one "losing credibilty" for pointing out right from the beginning that they were far left cranks that people should avoid being associated with

    Yes. Get over it already, you look as obsessed as a Remainer banging on about the bus.
    Wokes getting annoyed that they were duped yet again
    Whilst I get where the Premier League are trying to come from, the argument that BLM is being “hijacked” by elements with another agenda is somewhat ridiculous when those “elements” were behind the slogan in the first place. The “taking the knee” symbol had a somewhat different purpose originally to how it is being interpreted now.

    Someone made a decent point the other day saying that the PL adopting “BLM” didn’t exactly show a lot of confidence in their existing and active anti racism campaigns (“Kick it out” etc).
    Importing stupid Americanisms is pathetic in my opinion. Just gives the arseholes in this country something to virtue signal and pretend they give a crap. I forecast it will not outlast the summer.
    I would never go that far, but I do maintain that initially at least there was too much jumping on an attempt to be trendy and make a global trend, making it seem focused on an American context which does not match the issues other countries undoubtedly have, and thus may not be as effective as intended.
    This - Brazil would make sense for a BLM protest about the police, for example.

    In the US, my relatives in NY (old school left Democrats) tell me that UK policing is sometimes used as an example of what the US police should try for, in serious conversation. The emphasis on de-ecalation vs going "tactical"* is considered especially interesting.

    Given a couple of them do pro bono work for the NAACP....

    *Dressing up in black and shooting everyone
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,308

    MrEd said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hmm, the Economist model is showing Biden with a 98% chance of winning the popular vote.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?

    Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
    Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
    Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
    Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
    My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
    That being so at state level and taking MOE into account, the electoral college looks very much tighter than the national picture. And that is before we even consider voter suppression tactics.

    I have already pre-ordered Douglas's book "Will he go". It looks fascinating. To cut to the chase, Douglas maintains one of the key strands of Trump contesting the result is postal votes. Postal votes are counted after the physical vote result is in. Douglas maintains if Trump "wins" the physical vote but then as postal votes are counted is lead dissipates he will cry foul. He has already set this stall out with an unfounded critique of postal voting in 2016. Remarkable stuff!
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    IanB2 said:

    US President Donald Trump's administration has secured almost all the world's upcoming supply of the drug remdesivir. The drug, produced by the firm Gilead Sciences, is the first approved by authorities in the US to be used to treat Covid-19.

    It has been shown to help people recover faster from the disease.

    A statement from the Department of Health and Human services says Trump struck an "amazing" deal with Gilead for 500,000 doses which amounts to 100% of Gilead's production in July, 90% of it in August and 90% in September.

    A treatment course of remdesivir is, on average, 6.25 vials.

    As was pointed out on R4 this may make countries less willing to participate in US Company drug tests if they're not going to see any benefit from it.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,143
    RobD said:

    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?

    But it was. That's the point.

    https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1278235012614193154
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Most Roman slaves were white of course, including Celtic Britons
    Nubians? Maybe that was the Egyptians.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,774
    Scott_xP said:
    No need for Momentum Renewal; Momentum is conserved in a closed system. :smile:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787

    The BBC website has a map showing that Bradford is a virus hotspot.

    I'll be staying at home a while longer.

    Bugger, I was going to book my summer holidays there.

    How's Barnsley looking?

    https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/disappointment-for-millions-who-had-booked-holidays-in-leicester-20200630197985
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?
    It is visible in Pillar 1 data
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,319
    Scott_xP said:
    The war of the Momentum factions was funny to watch. Not that it matters that much - they can criticise Lansman all the like. It remains his business.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131

    MrEd said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hmm, the Economist model is showing Biden with a 98% chance of winning the popular vote.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?

    Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
    Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
    Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
    Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
    My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
    That being so at state level and taking MOE into account, the electoral college looks very much tighter than the national picture. And that is before we even consider voter suppression tactics.

    I have already pre-ordered Douglas's book "Will he go". It looks fascinating. To cut to the chase, Douglas maintains one of the key strands of Trump contesting the result is postal votes. Postal votes are counted after the physical vote result is in. Douglas maintains if Trump "wins" the physical vote but then as postal votes are counted is lead dissipates he will cry foul. He has already set this stall out with an unfounded critique of postal voting in 2016. Remarkable stuff!
    If Trump wins Florida for example it will be due to mail in ballots e.g. Bush won Florida in 2000 due to the postal votes of the absentee military population
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Regarding pillar 1 and pillar 2:

    Parts of Wales have the highest levels of coronavirus in the UK - but that's because England isn't counting properly

    Yet an investigation by the Financial Times has revealed this is largely because England has been publishing the wrong data.

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/coronavirus-wrexham-cases-spike-north-18513005.amp

    Can English people trust their government when it is so blatantly deceitful?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
    I think Cicero's slave is often quoted as kind of liberated and successful. Not sure how typical an employer Cicero was though.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    Scott_xP said:
    So having lost control of the Labour Party, now Momentum have even lost control of Momentum
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335

    MrEd said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Hmm, the Economist model is showing Biden with a 98% chance of winning the popular vote.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?

    Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
    Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
    Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
    Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
    My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
    That being so at state level and taking MOE into account, the electoral college looks very much tighter than the national picture. And that is before we even consider voter suppression tactics.

    I have already pre-ordered Douglas's book "Will he go". It looks fascinating. To cut to the chase, Douglas maintains one of the key strands of Trump contesting the result is postal votes. Postal votes are counted after the physical vote result is in. Douglas maintains if Trump "wins" the physical vote but then as postal votes are counted is lead dissipates he will cry foul. He has already set this stall out with an unfounded critique of postal voting in 2016. Remarkable stuff!
    I think this is one of a number of reasons the Dems have to win big.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300
    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,601
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    One more indication that people get wiser and more tolerant as they get older.

    It is perfectly possible that in 200 years time meat eating will be seen as at best a cultural curiosity of interest to historical anthropologists, and/or that mass abortion will be seen as a grave and irrational evil. I hope they won't all rush to judge our world of 2020, doing its incompetent best, by their different future standards.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    That shows a decline elsewhere?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,314

    Scott_xP said:
    The war of the Momentum factions was funny to watch. Not that it matters that much - they can criticise Lansman all the like. It remains his business.
    Marxists who run businesses eh?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,143
    HYUFD said:

    So having lost control of the Labour Party, now Momentum have even lost control of Momentum

    It's impressive in a way
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989
    Scott_xP said:

    RobD said:

    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?

    But it was. That's the point.

    https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1278235012614193154
    That doesn't say anything about an increase in cases, just that pillar 2 is finding more cases.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,135
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300

    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
    I think Cicero's slave is often quoted as kind of liberated and successful. Not sure how typical an employer Cicero was though.
    Yes, I think being the right kind of slave in ancient Rome was a possible route to a good life.

    I was thinking of more recent examples.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MrEd said:



    Cheers Edmund. The weird thing is that the polling for the 2012 election showed that 24% had a High School diploma or less vs the 18% for 2016. So if both are correct, it somewhat undermines the argument that Trump won because mainly white working class whites came out for him that hadn't voted before.

    Yes.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    That shows a decline elsewhere?
    If the only data you have is the blue bar you think "it's under control and falling to low levels". If you know about the red bar the picture's not as rosy as you think.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,989

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    That shows a decline elsewhere?
    If the only data you have is the blue bar you think "it's under control and falling to low levels". If you know about the red bar the picture's not as rosy as you think.
    Nothing quite as dramatic as the Leicester graph though.
  • Options
    FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 3,909

    Following interest shown in presenting local data -

    England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.

    Colour starts at 5 cases per day.

    Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.



    You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.

    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift
    Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?

    Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,986
    edited July 2020
    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Last June the RCP averages were

    Clinton 44.8
    Trump 39.2

    The final result was

    Clinton 48.2
    Trump 46.1

    The RCP average for June this time round is

    Biden 50.3
    Trump 40.8

    So the undecideds/"other" parties are lower than last time.

    Not only is Trump further behind, he has a smaller pool of non committed voters to collect from.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,914

    rkrkrk said:

    Hmm, the Economist model is showing Biden with a 98% chance of winning the popular vote.
    https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

    I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?

    Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
    Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
    Admittedly I misread and thought you meant electoral college.

    Even for popular vote, I think there's a greater than 2% chance that in the age of COVID, poll sampling might not be accurate/differential turnout could change the result.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    edited July 2020
    Hong Kong protestor displaying pro independence flag among dozens arrested after new Beijing security law

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-53244862
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,514

    Veep betting.

    Rice back in as 2nd fav at 8.4

    Something odd about the vp market is someone keeps backing Joe Biden. Look at his graph. Whether that is the bot (as punters cash out) or money transfers (unlikely) or a real backer with a theory, who knows?
    thanks. i'm not sure i've quite ever understood the basic BF graph. volume is in £ is it?
    I'm no expert. Volume (aiui) is twice the stake. The most obvious deficiency with Betfair graphs is there is no timescale, and (aiui) time on the x-axis is not linear or even consistent. There is some information on the web and in Betfair's own help but most of it is aimed at traders.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,563
    edited July 2020

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    That shows a decline elsewhere?
    If the only data you have is the blue bar you think "it's under control and falling to low levels". If you know about the red bar the picture's not as rosy as you think.
    We were discussing the visibility of the Leicester outbreak in the Pillar 1 data yesterday.

    If you sum the reports in the last 15 days in the Pillar 1 data and sort, Leicester goes straight to the top.

    Scaling the graph to fit the Pillar 2 data in, squeezes the size of the Pillar 1 results.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    Sinn Fein leader defends attendance at senior republican's funeral

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-53246224
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Re: 70% chance.

    No one who ever played X-COM would want to stake anything important on a mere 70% chance...

    Under rated post.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,319
    Can someone talk me through Pillar 1 / Pillar 2?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,927
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
    I think Cicero's slave is often quoted as kind of liberated and successful. Not sure how typical an employer Cicero was though.
    Yes, I think being the right kind of slave in ancient Rome was a possible route to a good life.

    I was thinking of more recent examples.
    Very much so. A great man's secretary is a great man. Household slaves could usually look forward to being freed in due course. If they served an emperor or senator, they might become very powerful indeed.

    Life as a field hand, on the other hand, would be pretty brutal. Life as a slave in a mine or quarry was basically a horror show, just a slow death sentence.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,986
    What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans :o
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Last June the RCP averages were

    Clinton 44.8
    Trump 39.2

    The final result was

    Clinton 48.2
    Trump 46.1

    The RCP average for June this time round is

    Biden 50.3
    Trump 40.8

    So the undecideds/"other" parties are lower than last time.

    Not only is Trump further behind, he has a smaller pool of non committed voters to collect from.
    Both Biden and Trump are polling higher than last time for Hillary and Trump then but last time most undecideds went Trump
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    One could say the same of the government.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,137
    Slow.....that was all over the net last week.

    And in turn, it borrows from Kathleen Turner as China Blue in Ken Russell's Crimes of Passion, 1984:

    "Although we may run out of Pan Am coffee, we will never run out of TWA tea..."
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Last June the RCP averages were

    Clinton 44.8
    Trump 39.2

    The final result was

    Clinton 48.2
    Trump 46.1

    The RCP average for June this time round is

    Biden 50.3
    Trump 40.8

    So the undecideds/"other" parties are lower than last time.

    Not only is Trump further behind, he has a smaller pool of non committed voters to collect from.
    Both Biden and Trump are polling higher than last time for Hillary and Trump then but last time most undecideds went Trump
    The RCP eve of poll averages were (for the head to head polling)
    Clinton 46.8
    Trump 43.6

    So Clinton got 1.4 points more and Trump got 2.8 points more.

    An impressive 100% more.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,047

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
    Lot of people DNV in Presidential elections. Undecided's might just not vote.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    edited July 2020
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    If you're undecided, and the pandemic is still in full swing, would you bother turning out to vote ?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,408
    edited July 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans :o

    AIUI pillar one tests are those from hospitals and pillar two are the home and drive-thru test results. The government has only been swiftly publishing local data from pillar one.

    Edit/ I guess the issue is that Leicester hospital counts its test results made and processed locally, and can easily produce the figures. Whereas the home tests are being posted to labs all over and it takes a bit of work to allocate them back to postcode addresses.

    However, people in hospital are likely mostly to be already ill, whereas the home tests will include people with milder symptoms or who are just worried they might be infected. Hence the latter picks up outbreaks much earlier.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
    Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,135

    Slow.....that was all over the net last week.

    And in turn, it borrows from Kathleen Turner as China Blue in Ken Russell's Crimes of Passion, 1984:

    "Although we may run out of Pan Am coffee, we will never run out of TWA tea..."
    Sorry, I only saw it today, and it was a genuine LoL for me. Things take a while to reach South London.
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,176

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    Is PHE fit for purpose?

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787

    Can someone talk me through Pillar 1 / Pillar 2?

    Pillar 1- conducted in local hospitals, communicated directly to local authorities and patient's GP.
    Pillar 2 - centralised control, including mail in tests - until June 11 only included in national totals and LA breakdowns not communicated - they are being now, but AFAIK GPs are still not being informed (you know, the people who might know about co-morbidities)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    A very good thread on the supposed more transmissible variant of the virus, which reinforces the message of how difficult it is to show causation when confronted with multiple possible confounding factors:

    https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1257825352660877313
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,914

    Can someone talk me through Pillar 1 / Pillar 2?

    It seems a bit confused tbh. One website says this:

    Pillar 1 = swab testing for those with clinical need in PHE labs/hospitals (patients, health workers)
    Pillar 2 = swab testing for wider population

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-data-methodology/covid-19-testing-data-methodology-note

    But then this from govt says pillar 2 is for key workers (which seems different from general population):

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878121/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-strategy.pdf
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    Nigelb said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    One could say the same of the government.
    Absolutely - the governments get to carry the can of the failures of their Health authorities, not just the UK government.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    geoffw said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Because it wasn't happening elsewhere?


    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift

    It was happening in other areas. It looks like (another) failure of PHE with its centralised command & control and failure to communicate.

    Is PHE fit for purpose?

    Essentially, no.

    But it's the only public health organisation we have, so for now there's no alternative.
    Again, just like the government.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,986
    edited July 2020



    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.

    Using 2016 (And 2020) data, r^2 correlation of 0.009 for Biden and 0.004 for Clinton vs implied "don't know" when assessing this point.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12TxVySncZk-7rlfGs37SnjvVi8ePfZXR9LAkQ363Snw/edit?usp=sharing

    Think that's a "no"
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    Slow.....that was all over the net last week.

    And in turn, it borrows from Kathleen Turner as China Blue in Ken Russell's Crimes of Passion, 1984:

    "Although we may run out of Pan Am coffee, we will never run out of TWA tea..."
    Sorry, I only saw it today, and it was a genuine LoL for me. Things take a while to reach South London.

    Yes, got a LOL from me, too.

    (Crimes of Passion was a piss poor film; Turner was, as always, magnificent.)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,131
    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,514
    We should not forget these bounties covered British troops. Maybe this is why we needed a new National Security Advisor. One for PMQs.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited July 2020

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
    Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
    Yes, that's definitely right. I think the path for Trump is more like:

    - Start at 50 vs 40, gap of 10
    - Flip 2.5% to 47.5 vs 42.5 gets the gap down to 5
    - 3% advantage in Dunno/Other and it's 2
    - Squeak the electoral college again

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,408
    rkrkrk said:

    Can someone talk me through Pillar 1 / Pillar 2?

    It seems a bit confused tbh. One website says this:

    Pillar 1 = swab testing for those with clinical need in PHE labs/hospitals (patients, health workers)
    Pillar 2 = swab testing for wider population

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-data-methodology/covid-19-testing-data-methodology-note

    But then this from govt says pillar 2 is for key workers (which seems different from general population):

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878121/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-strategy.pdf
    I think the difference is where the test is done, not who it is being done to.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Does track and trace fall under Pillar 2 I guess?

    Presumably a good thing if we are finding a higher proportion outside of hospital than inside. Those who reach hospital stage would always be an iceberg effect so if we are tracing it in the community first instead that seems positive.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300
    HYUFD said:
    any politician who capitalises the "People" in the middle of a sentence is very dangerous
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,358
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,986

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    They probably don't vote but if they do they would probably split about 50/40. There's no reason to assume they trend any particular way.
    One thing that could be worth looking at that I was about to look at but then my browser crashed and I can no longer be arsed is, how does the lead vary depending on the other/don't-know proportion. For instance, Marist just started doing a "squeeze" question and are down to something like 2% undecided and 2% other. They have a somewhat lower lead than the average. So maybe if I'd had more memory in my laptop or Chrome was less greedy I'd have discovered that the polls with the big leads also have lots of undecideds, and squeezing undecided voters turns up a few % more Trumpists and not many Bidenistas.
    Yes, there may well be a narrowing on 'squeeze' but it would be absurd to allocate all the undecideds to Trump which is what you need to do to put him ahead.
    Yes, that's definitely right. I think the path for Trump is more like:

    - Start at 50 vs 40, gap of 10
    - Flip 2.5% to 47.5 vs 42.5 gets the gap down to 5
    - 3% advantage in DNV/Other and it's 2
    - Squeak the electoral college again

    There was a 1.75% swing total from the June polling average to Trump last time round.

    A similiar result this time round would yield Biden winning by 6% at the election.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,408
    It's like pillar one is a count of bombs dropping on your town and pillar two are reports of people seeing incoming aircraft. It takes a bit more work to make pillar two into useful local data, but if you are hoping to run for shelter it is rather more useful.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    rkrkrk said:

    Can someone talk me through Pillar 1 / Pillar 2?

    It seems a bit confused tbh. One website says this:

    Pillar 1 = swab testing for those with clinical need in PHE labs/hospitals (patients, health workers)
    Pillar 2 = swab testing for wider population

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-data-methodology/covid-19-testing-data-methodology-note

    But then this from govt says pillar 2 is for key workers (which seems different from general population):

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878121/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-strategy.pdf
    If you're signed up to the joinzoe Covid symptom tracking app, you get access to their weekly test report (which is shared with government), too:
    https://covid.joinzoe.com
    The COVID Symptom Study app has been developed by health science company ZOE.
It is endorsed by the Welsh Government, NHS Wales, the Scottish Government & NHS Scotland. Data collected is shared with and analysed by King's College London & ZOE research teams.

    Currently only about 4 million signed up in the UK, but it's a good way to get tested quickly if you report symptoms.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    Not that much of a minority. Betfair implies a 33% chance Trump wins, and self-evidently that indicates it could still be close.

    I think the odds are justified by the polls which are highly favorable to Biden but without suggesting it's already a done deal.

    If I wanted to talk up Biden's chances I'd stress the virus and the econompy but I'm not really interested in talking up anyone's chances.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    In that case I apologise, and I'm glad to hear you'd vote for Biden over Trump. It's still reprehensible that you would vote for Trump over Sanders.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,368

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    How many want Biden to win. ........
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,670
    So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.

    a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.

    b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.

    c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.

    d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.

    e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,997
    Pulpstar said:

    What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans :o

    It is extraordinary that this Pillar 2 (non-hospital) data has not been shared with local public health authorities. That can only be gross incompetence surely? No other reason. It will have cost lives unnecessarily.

    It also makes a nonsense of just relying on Pillar 1 data to track the progress of the disease. I'm going to stop my daily updates. No point.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
    Contrarian seemed to be a possible Trump supporter?
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    If you're undecided, and the pandemic is still in full swing, would you bother turning out to vote ?
    Anecdote of one. Mrs Ed's parents are African-American and Democrats of the old school - at university during the 60s, always voted Democrats etc. My mother-in-law was saying how bad a candidate Biden is and she could not believe the Democrats could not have chosen someone better.

    Will my in-laws go out and vote Democrat in November? Absolutely.

    However, if you are on the fence and think both are awful, will you bother to vote?
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,997
    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    It is not a minority view that Trump could still win it. That is reflected in the betting and in the various models. The minority view is that it is likely that he will win it.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,534
    Sean_F said:

    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
    Although when people talk about "the standards of the time", they often seem to mean the standards of a small group of people of the time. Like say, the opinions of slave-owners of the time, rather than the opinions of, I don't know, slaves of the time.
    I think Cicero's slave is often quoted as kind of liberated and successful. Not sure how typical an employer Cicero was though.
    Yes, I think being the right kind of slave in ancient Rome was a possible route to a good life.

    I was thinking of more recent examples.
    Very much so. A great man's secretary is a great man. Household slaves could usually look forward to being freed in due course. If they served an emperor or senator, they might become very powerful indeed.

    Life as a field hand, on the other hand, would be pretty brutal. Life as a slave in a mine or quarry was basically a horror show, just a slow death sentence.
    Some people also voluntarily made themselves eunuchs for the same reason.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,534

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
    He should try being a woman. Might throw people off the scent..
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792
    MrEd said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    If you're undecided, and the pandemic is still in full swing, would you bother turning out to vote ?
    Anecdote of one. Mrs Ed's parents are African-American and Democrats of the old school - at university during the 60s, always voted Democrats etc. My mother-in-law was saying how bad a candidate Biden is and she could not believe the Democrats could not have chosen someone better.

    Will my in-laws go out and vote Democrat in November? Absolutely.

    However, if you are on the fence and think both are awful, will you bother to vote?
    If it's not too personal a question, what does Mrs Ed think ?
  • Options
    OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,917
    edited July 2020

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.

    So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.

    This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split

    538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
    I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear.
    538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
    Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.

    I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
    He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
    In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,792

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
    I reckon @LadyG might be a shy Trumper...
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,319
    So the summary of the Pillar 1 / Pillar 2 disparity is this. Headline data (Pillar 1) shows a continuing Drop in cases. Huzzah. Patriotic duty to get pissed and start a fight etc. Whereas Pillar 2 shows that you would have to be suicidal to allow people to do that.

    Who are these fucking idiots running the country????
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,296

    Following interest shown in presenting local data -

    England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.

    Colour starts at 5 cases per day.

    Isn't the issue with communication of Pillar 2 testing (not done in local hospitals) ? Leicester didn't have a problem with local hospital tests - only with the contracted out Pillar 2 tests which they weren't told about until a few days ago.



    You're following the blue bar - you haven't got a problem - but you have if no one is telling you about the red bar.

    https://www.ft.com/content/301c847c-a317-4950-a75b-8e66933d423a?shareType=nongift
    Does this not suggest, given the lack of a blip in the Pillar 1 cases, that it is a younger demographic catching the virus?

    Or is it just that Pillar 2 testing has ramped up massively?
    So I think there are several take homes from the Leicester Pillar 1 and 2 situation.
    (1) Pillar 2 data needs to be made available, if not to everyone, at least to the relevant local authorities.
    (2) While the scale of the issue in Leicester was not being shown in just the Pillar 1 data, there was clearly something going on from the P1 data.
    (3) As others have suggested - are the P2 cases to some extent picked up through more testing (contacts etc) and possibly asymptomatic?
    (4) It is also somewhat good news as the proportion of the positives in England and Wales coming from just Leicester is quite high, and thus the new cases everywhere else are a bit lower.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
    I reckon @LadyG might be a shy Trumper...
    Will try to find out. I'm off to Hampstead today.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020
    edited July 2020
    MrEd said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    If you're undecided, and the pandemic is still in full swing, would you bother turning out to vote ?
    Anecdote of one. Mrs Ed's parents are African-American and Democrats of the old school - at university during the 60s, always voted Democrats etc. My mother-in-law was saying how bad a candidate Biden is and she could not believe the Democrats could not have chosen someone better.

    Will my in-laws go out and vote Democrat in November? Absolutely.

    However, if you are on the fence and think both are awful, will you bother to vote?
    That is the great unknown of all elections - if you don't like either candidate what reason do you have to go out and vote for the least worst one (outside of Australia where you are required to vote).

    I suspect one reason for GOP pushing to removing polling stations is to discourage exactly this type of person, Democrat leaning but not 100% bothered.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,128
    Scott_xP said:
    PB spent much of yesterday laughing at that list.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,300
    kjh said:

    So 'More or Less' finished with a special summary of the Covid outbreak in the UK. As usual it was excellent and I recommend a listen. Too much to report here but a few interesting bits of info.

    a) Whereas places like Italy had regional outbreaks we splattered it all over the country by millions returning from travelling home from Italy, Spain and France. It is estimated 1306 (why so specific a number?) infected people started pockets of infection all over the country. I have not considered this as a key factor before compared to other countries.

    b) It is now estimated If we had locked down 1 week earlier the deaths could have been reduced by 75%.

    c) BJ both lied and mislead Parliament by his statement on NHS patients moved to care homes (listen for details). Although it should be noted that several other countries also had appalling Care Home issues.

    d) Testing was far too late. Although we have high number of tests now compared to other countries it is the high numbers early on that matters. A comparison with Germany was made who no longer need the number of tests so although our numbers compared to them is comparable it is also meaningless.

    e) And for those on here arguing it is the number of tests and not the number of people tested that matters (thinking of Philip T here in particular) the number of people tested is still outstanding after a month. The point was made that the number of tests is irrelevant. The number of people tested is the meaningful figure.

    on a)
    it seems to reinforce the idea that not imposing travel restrictions was a big mistake. a mistake that Germany and others also made - I'm sure similar or higher numbers of independent infections were brought back from places like Italy to Germany. What's strange in a way, is that it would have been much easier (both practically and politically?) for Britain to impose travel restrictions and border controls than a country like Germany, so Britain's failure here seems a bit less excusable to me.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,128

    HYUFD said:

    kamski said:

    HYUFD said:

    coach said:

    Some help please:

    At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?

    I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.

    It's here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    So July 1st is
    Clinton 44.6
    Trump 39.8.

    Graph for this time for comparison:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls

    Biden at 50% RCP national average, Trump at 40.4%.

    So where are the other 10%? Either a big third party vote, still undecided or shy Trumpers?
    Why don't you just go ahead and do what you always do: add ALL the don't knows, won't says etc to your favoured side. Voila! Biden and Trump neck-and-neck.
    I do not favour Trump, had I been American I would vote for Biden as I would have voted for Hillary, I would only have voted for Trump over Sanders.

    I am just of the minority view it will still be a very close election and Trump could still win it
    To be honest I cannot think of anyone on this forum who wants Trump re-elected
    Russianguy1983?
    Stuart Truth?

    And what about SeanT's aliases - surely at least one of them must be a closet Trumpette?
    Wasn't Stuart Truth a Romney supporter in 2012 ?
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,335
    OllyT said:

    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.

    So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.

    This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split

    538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
    I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear.
    538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
    Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.

    I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
    He also wants a Trump victory beyond his book: he is a Trumpton as well as a Trump backer.
    In terms of betting tips Mr Eds posts need to carry a severe health warning. They sound authoritative till you realise just how extremely selective he is being in the information he uses.
    Personally I find them a useful reality check. Trump is such an asshole it's easy to kid yourself he can't win.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,997
    edited July 2020
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans :o

    AIUI pillar one tests are those from hospitals and pillar two are the home and drive-thru test results. The government has only been swiftly publishing local data from pillar one.

    Edit/ I guess the issue is that Leicester hospital counts its test results made and processed locally, and can easily produce the figures. Whereas the home tests are being posted to labs all over and it takes a bit of work to allocate them back to postcode addresses.

    However, people in hospital are likely mostly to be already ill, whereas the home tests will include people with milder symptoms or who are just worried they might be infected. Hence the latter picks up outbreaks much earlier.
    It doesn't take a lot of work to look up a postcode from an address. Most addresses will have a postcode with them anyway. Looking up 200-300 postcodes is less than a day's work for one person. They can be automatically allocated to local authorities. Your explanation might be the reason. A bit of trouble. It is not an excuse.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,914
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What fresh covid data hell is this "hidden" Pillar 2 shennanigans :o

    It is extraordinary that this Pillar 2 (non-hospital) data has not been shared with local public health authorities. That can only be gross incompetence surely? No other reason. It will have cost lives unnecessarily.

    It also makes a nonsense of just relying on Pillar 1 data to track the progress of the disease. I'm going to stop my daily updates. No point.
    I'm struggling to think of why you wouldn't tell local authorities.
    And it seems they've been asking for months.

    Gross incompetence is possible but unlikely. They've clearly had this data and it's not that much work to send an email.
This discussion has been closed.