Biden piling up votes in liberal states and black votes in southern states which won't win him any ECVs.
As I said today, it's all to play for and I think the Dems are going to blow it, even in the most favourable political environment they've had for ages. Suburban whites don't enjoy being called racist, they don't believe they are racist and by. A fairly large majority they aren't racist. The Dems are allowing a small group of idiots to represent them and that group is going around calling all white people racist, it's going to backfire on them very badly.
Focus groups of Suburban whites are absolutely horrific for Trump. They hate his racism. They will defend him over everything apart from the racism and that alone swings them against him.
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Biden piling up votes in liberal states and black votes in southern states which won't win him any ECVs.
As I said today, it's all to play for and I think the Dems are going to blow it, even in the most favourable political environment they've had for ages. Suburban whites don't enjoy being called racist, they don't believe they are racist and by. A fairly large majority they aren't racist. The Dems are allowing a small group of idiots to represent them and that group is going around calling all white people racist, it's going to backfire on them very badly.
Focus groups of Suburban whites are absolutely horrific for Trump. They hate his racism. They will defend him over everything apart from the racism and that alone swings them against him.
Yes, I can see that because they aren't racists, the issue is, and you haven't addressed it, that we now have groups of people calling those suburban whites racist and those people are being backed by the Dems. It's not going to make them more likely to vote for Biden.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
Whatever you think of that scientist's views, he is an incredibly effective communicator. Would that British or American TV news programmes would give that much time to an individual to explain complex and nuanced issues.
French current affairs programmes are simply miles ahead of those in the UK or US. They assume a level of intelligence on the part of the viewer and the aim genuinely seems to be to inform and learn rather than to catch politicians out or show how clever the presenters are.
Yep. Too true. I prefer French current affairs programmes even though I don't speak French. That's how much better they are than our dismal offerings.
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
My guess is because the GOP has weaponised it due to Supreme Court cases they've lost that they hate - Roe v Wade, Obergefelle v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas etc
Despite the fact that SCOTUS has been weaponised and conservative for most of modern history, I don't think liberals have such a totemic issue that touches them like Roe v Wade does.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
My guess is because the GOP has weaponised it due to Supreme Court cases they've lost that they hate - Roe v Wade, Obergefelle v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas etc
Despite the fact that SCOTUS has been weaponised and conservative for most of modern history, I don't think liberals have such a totemic issue that touches them like Roe v Wade does.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
My guess is because the GOP has weaponised it due to Supreme Court cases they've lost that they hate - Roe v Wade, Obergefelle v Hodges, Lawrence v Texas etc
Despite the fact that SCOTUS has been weaponised and conservative for most of modern history, I don't think liberals have such a totemic issue that touches them like Roe v Wade does.
Protecting it is pretty totemic.
Not the same.
Just like how Remainers here cared much more after we voted to Leave than they did before we voted to Leave. Sometimes you don't appreciate what you've got til its gone.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Are they though?
Those that are watching MSNBC are the choir, if the Dems want to spend $10m preaching to them...
You have to be truly despicable to want Trump to win. It has nothing to do with being “woke” or “left vs right”.
Grow up
The guy openly fans the flames of race war and panders to white supremacists. He is a despicable human being and anyone who “supports” him is just as despicable.
Wanting to piss off some “wokists” is no excuse.
The “Race War” is coming from the Democrats and the woke left.
Trump and the Republicans are quite happy to quote Martin Luther King, who famously said that people should be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
A contender for the most braindead PB post of 2020.
Is it the heat out there?
As I warned: Satire.
Too many people think that Twitter is representative, and because 95% of people on Twitter think Trump is Lucifer the election result is a foregone conclusion.
I'm trying to read around the news in the US, looking at more impartial sources away from the MSM narrative and opinionating.
One thing that's really clear is that there's ongoing riots and looting in many cities, and the national media are desperately trying to downplay the violence. The original BLM protests have been in many cases taken over by 'Antifa', a group of rich white anarchist lefties who want to abolish the police.
The people living in and around these cities (and many others) are genuinely scared that the violence is coming their way, and see the local politicians at best being agnostic, and many are unofficially supporting the 'protests'.
This is a betting site, and I'm trying to bring some balance to the debate. If the riots continue as we get closer to the election, it will help Republicans.
Not buying that. That you are seeking to bring balance for betting purposes. It makes no sense. Trump's odds are short given the polls, it's clearly not Twitter driving the betting but the opposite, it's pro-Trump sentiment. So if anything it's balance the other way that is required. For example, to question the consensus verging on groupthink that suburbanites will turn to Big Daddy Trump because they are scared of rioting, rather than turn to a more conciliatory quieter figure, Biden, under whom the temperature of political life might cool.
No, I think you are projecting your own views. Or rather I don't think that, I know you are. Antifa are a bunch of rich whites whereas Trump is happy to quote Martin Luther King? C'mon.
I'll let you think what you think, that's obviously your prerogative.
What I see is a bunch of Republicans who are arguing that people should be treated according to the content of their character, and a bunch of Democrats who think people should be treated according to the colour of their skin.
It's well documented that the Antifa rioters are white, middle-class left-wingers.
I'm genuinely agnostic as to the result, I think that both candidates will work constructively with the UK as president. Congress is also just as important when considering how a trade deal plays out.
Both the polls and the betting markets are being driven by emotional sentiment much more than factual information, as opposed to trying to understand what's actually happening on the ground in the swing states.
The polls are being driven by sentiment rather than facts? Not sure what that even means. The polls record voting intention and in any case the vote itself on Nov 3rd will be largely driven by sentiment, no?
And I'm sorry but I just cannot detect the link that you do between Trump's Republicans and Martin Luther King.
If you're benignly agnostic on the result I can only think that you have been oddly blind and deaf for 4 years and have not clocked how this guy has behaved in office and has been abusing the power and pulpit of the presidency.
You have to be truly despicable to want Trump to win. It has nothing to do with being “woke” or “left vs right”.
Grow up
The guy openly fans the flames of race war and panders to white supremacists. He is a despicable human being and anyone who “supports” him is just as despicable.
Wanting to piss off some “wokists” is no excuse.
The “Race War” is coming from the Democrats and the woke left.
Trump and the Republicans are quite happy to quote Martin Luther King, who famously said that people should be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
A contender for the most braindead PB post of 2020.
Is it the heat out there?
As I warned: Satire.
Too many people think that Twitter is representative, and because 95% of people on Twitter think Trump is Lucifer the election result is a foregone conclusion.
I'm trying to read around the news in the US, looking at more impartial sources away from the MSM narrative and opinionating.
One thing that's really clear is that there's ongoing riots and looting in many cities, and the national media are desperately trying to downplay the violence. The original BLM protests have been in many cases taken over by 'Antifa', a group of rich white anarchist lefties who want to abolish the police.
The people living in and around these cities (and many others) are genuinely scared that the violence is coming their way, and see the local politicians at best being agnostic, and many are unofficially supporting the 'protests'.
This is a betting site, and I'm trying to bring some balance to the debate. If the riots continue as we get closer to the election, it will help Republicans.
Not buying that. That you are seeking to bring balance for betting purposes. It makes no sense. Trump's odds are short given the polls, it's clearly not Twitter driving the betting but the opposite, it's pro-Trump sentiment. So if anything it's balance the other way that is required. For example, to question the consensus verging on groupthink that suburbanites will turn to Big Daddy Trump because they are scared of rioting, rather than turn to a more conciliatory quieter figure, Biden, under whom the temperature of political life might cool.
No, I think you are projecting your own views. Or rather I don't think that, I know you are. Antifa are a bunch of rich whites whereas Trump is happy to quote Martin Luther King? C'mon.
I'll let you think what you think, that's obviously your prerogative.
What I see is a bunch of Republicans who are arguing that people should be treated according to the content of their character, and a bunch of Democrats who think people should be treated according to the colour of their skin.
It's well documented that the Antifa rioters are white, middle-class left-wingers.
I'm genuinely agnostic as to the result, I think that both candidates will work constructively with the UK as president. Congress is also just as important when considering how a trade deal plays out.
Both the polls and the betting markets are being driven by emotional sentiment much more than factual information, as opposed to trying to understand what's actually happening on the ground in the swing states.
The polls are being driven by sentiment rather than facts? Not sure what that even means. The polls record voting intention and in any case the vote itself on Nov 3rd will be largely driven by sentiment, no?
And I'm sorry but I just cannot detect the link that you do between Trump's Republicans and Martin Luther King.
If you're benignly agnostic on the result I can only think that you have been oddly blind and deaf for 4 years and have not clocked how this guy has behaved in office and has been abusing the power and pulpit of the presidency.
Just for the record, I personally think Trump is an idiot, and almost anyone else would be a better president of the USA.
I'm genuinely trying to look at a variety of American opinion, and bring this to a betting site.
There's clear evidence at the moment that 99% of Twitter thinks DT is a f****** c***, and 90% of PB thinks he's a f****** c***, but at least 40% of Americans intend voting for him.
I agree with @MikeSmithson in the header. Punters are busy fighting the last war. Everything suggests that Trump is too short. I reckon he won't break 200 EV and am betting accordingly.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Are they though?
Those that are watching MSNBC are the choir, if the Dems want to spend $10m preaching to them...
How do you know what the target voters are watching? That’s what I’m asking. What evidence is there that YouTube would have been a better use of 10m dollars?
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Are they though?
Those that are watching MSNBC are the choir, if the Dems want to spend $10m preaching to them...
How do you know what the target voters are watching? That’s what I’m asking. What evidence is there that YouTube would have been a better use of 10m dollars?
The Dems spent $10m around the TV coverage of their conference, targeting those that were watching it already.
The Reps spent $1m on adverting on the front page online of a major newspaper, and $1m more on advertising to EVERYONE IN THE USA WHO WAS ON YOUTUBE THAT DAY. Not everyone that was following politics or the convention, every single American who was on YouTube.
The Dems could have taken up both online opportunities, but for some reason chose not to.
Its quite logical. Early week offers are quite common but often with promotions simply getting the word out there that you're running a promotion is quite expensive - and if its a low-margin promotion you're doing then getting a marketing budget to run the promotion is a bit Catch 22. What you don't want to do is run a discount that only people who would be going to your business anyway end up getting which just cannibalises your own trade.
If your trade is up now with mountains of free publicity then keeping it going is quite logical.
Facebook Says Apple's iOS 14 Anti-Tracking Features Will Cut 50% of its Audience Network Ad Revenue.
Facebook today warned advertisers that Apple's upcoming anti-tracking tools could cause a more than 50 percent drop in Audience Network publisher revenue due to the removal of personalization from ads within apps.
The thing to look for in every poll is or are the crosstabs. What is the sampling - are Democrats, Independents or Republicans being over-sampled? Rasmussen and Trafalgar hide their crosstabs behind a paywall - if someone could find them and publish them we'd see if they were over-sampling Republicans and perhaps Independents.
In 2016, 37% of those who voted were registered Democrats, 33% Republicans and 31% Independents (rounded). Now, @rcs1000 tells us the number of registered Republicans has fallen further so would 37% Dem, 33% Ind and 30% Republican be more accurate?
In 2016, 70% of those who voted were White, 12% were Black and 11% Hispanic. Whites voted 58-37 for Trump but would they still be 70% of voters or down a little?
The 90% of previous voters in 2016 split equally 47-47 but the 10% of first time voters went 56-40 for Clinton thus giving her a 2% advantage.
So, taking the Economist/YouGov out today which puts Biden ahead 50-41.
The voter split is 37.6% Democrat, 35.4% Independent (43-39 for Biden) and 27% Republican so is that under-sampling Republicans and over-sampling Independents?
The ethnic split is 71% White (48-44 for Trump), 12% Black and 12% Hispanic (rounded).
The geographic split has Biden up a point in the Midwest and up four points in the South which represents more than a third of the total vote. The South went for Trump 52-44 but he now trails 43-47 so that's a 6% swing to Biden in this area while in the Midwest which Trump won 49-45 last time he trails 46-47 so just a 2.5% swing to Biden.
MY current view is Biden is putting on votes where he doesn't need them - in his strongholds in the North East and West but also in strong Republican areas. In Virginia, Clinton won by 5 but Biden is up by 14 so again as I've mentioned before that swing of 3-6% to Biden but in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona it is much closer.
Trump is polling badly where he has no chance or where he is safe but is doing well enough where he needs to keep himself in the election. However, Biden has eked out a 2-3% swing in the battleground which would be enough to see him take back a number of swing states.
I cannot believe for a nanosecond Biden and the Democrats are in any way complacent. They remember 2016 and will be as resolute for every vote as Labour was in 1997 after the brutal defeat of 1992 - the parallels are there.
Can we cut out the judging of those who are betting on Trump please or who don’t necessarily think he’s the antichrist?
This is a betting site, not an echo chamber.
We in the UK are generally rather poor at understanding American politics.
The last thing I want is valuable information and insight disappearing from this forum because those who are backing Trump are intimidated into silence, and decide it’s just not worth the bother.
If that does happen, and I lose money as a consequence, I will be billing the culprits the difference.
No we cannot. Trump is a truly disgusting person and those who actively cheer on his race baiting and his sullying of American democracy itself deserve all the contempt they get.
It has nothing to do with betting. There’s a very good chance indeed that Trump will win again, but that’s a separate discussion.
It's the same discussion. I've begun hedging my Biden for POTUS position and part of why is because his race baiting, democracy sullying appeals to some Americans who live in key swing states. Understand that is important to my betting strategy and if people who post here have insight into the mindset then I want to hear from them. PB doesn't have cancel culture, it's one of the few places that doesn't, any move to start one should be resisted.
Agreed. Trumpsters - those who want him to win for political not betting reasons - have a right to post their views on here and they should because it's important to hear them. Likewise people who are bemused by the above or are angered or have contempt for it have a right to express that. Which is where we are, I think. I'm not seeing a big problem.
There's a problem because all you have is insults. You have few arguments. Blacks and hispanics enjoyed record employment levels under Trump before COVID hit. That a number. Its a statistic. Its a fact.
Its also a fact that as Kim Klasic pointed out, black neighbourhoods have nightmare levels of crime and social problems after decades of democratic government.
Its no good screaming racist! at these facts.
I'm perfectly Ok to make the case that Donald Trump seeks to validate and exploit racism rather than fight it.
We'll do it sequentially and numbered from now until he goes down on Nov 3rd. I'm the prosecution, you're the defence.
Exhibit Number 1 - Birther.
Fact. He took a leading role in pushing the Conspiracy Theory that Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and thus ineligible to be President.
My explanation. Validation and exploitation of racism.
Your explanation ... pls advise.
My explanation: a love of controversy and headlines and being the centre of attention
(Spoiler alert: this could be the answer for your next 70 killer points)
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Are they though?
Those that are watching MSNBC are the choir, if the Dems want to spend $10m preaching to them...
How do you know what the target voters are watching? That’s what I’m asking. What evidence is there that YouTube would have been a better use of 10m dollars?
The Dems spent $10m around the TV coverage of their conference, targeting those that were watching it already.
The Reps spent $1m on adverting on the front page online of a major newspaper, and $1m more on advertising to EVERYONE IN THE USA WHO WAS ON YOUTUBE THAT DAY. Not everyone that was following politics or the convention, every single American who was on YouTube.
The Dems could have taken up both online opportunities, but for some reason chose not to.
And do we know the voting intention of those who use YouTube? Maybe it’s not worth it.
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
Well for a start I think the Govt should have moved heaven and earth to not have the exams cancelled. But yes, I agree that they were in a very difficult situation. As it happens I think they could have used the algorithm, or some version of it, as a starting point to challenge the grades offered by teachers. And maybe then by putting in the work we could have had a teacher assessment that people could accept. And there is no doubt whatsover that for the Govt to claim that they had no forewarning of what would happen until only a few weeks ago is pathetic. There was plenty of warning and it was entirely predictable. What were they doing?
But my main point wasn’t to look back. It was to ask whether the govt are now looking forward. Or are they going to find themselves again “surprised” when the follow up consequences unfold over the next few years and they put in place last minute fixes on the back of media pressure.
You have to be truly despicable to want Trump to win. It has nothing to do with being “woke” or “left vs right”.
Quite a few PB Trumptons on here: MrEd, LuckyGuy, Contrarian, AveIt, Sandpit – to name but five.
It's bizarre because Contrarian and Sandpit seem otherwise perfectly sane.
Your McCarthyite tendency to try and out Trump betters and backers and then hold them to account for it is particularly unpleasant.
Stop it.
I'm quite happy to be amongst the accused. I can't say I'm devastated that Anabobazina deems me less than perfectly sane either.
People have utterly lost their shit over Trump. A Trump job is worse than non-Trump unemployment. A Trump peace is worse than a Hillary war. A Trump medicine is worse than having Covid-19. It's silly.
To be fair a Trump medicine could be worse that having Covid-19.
You have to be truly despicable to want Trump to win. It has nothing to do with being “woke” or “left vs right”.
Grow up
The guy openly fans the flames of race war and panders to white supremacists. He is a despicable human being and anyone who “supports” him is just as despicable.
Wanting to piss off some “wokists” is no excuse.
The “Race War” is coming from the Democrats and the woke left.
Trump and the Republicans are quite happy to quote Martin Luther King, who famously said that people should be judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.
A contender for the most braindead PB post of 2020.
Is it the heat out there?
As I warned: Satire.
Too many people think that Twitter is representative, and because 95% of people on Twitter think Trump is Lucifer the election result is a foregone conclusion.
I'm trying to read around the news in the US, looking at more impartial sources away from the MSM narrative and opinionating.
One thing that's really clear is that there's ongoing riots and looting in many cities, and the national media are desperately trying to downplay the violence. The original BLM protests have been in many cases taken over by 'Antifa', a group of rich white anarchist lefties who want to abolish the police.
The people living in and around these cities (and many others) are genuinely scared that the violence is coming their way, and see the local politicians at best being agnostic, and many are unofficially supporting the 'protests'.
This is a betting site, and I'm trying to bring some balance to the debate. If the riots continue as we get closer to the election, it will help Republicans.
Not buying that. That you are seeking to bring balance for betting purposes. It makes no sense. Trump's odds are short given the polls, it's clearly not Twitter driving the betting but the opposite, it's pro-Trump sentiment. So if anything it's balance the other way that is required. For example, to question the consensus verging on groupthink that suburbanites will turn to Big Daddy Trump because they are scared of rioting, rather than turn to a more conciliatory quieter figure, Biden, under whom the temperature of political life might cool.
No, I think you are projecting your own views. Or rather I don't think that, I know you are. Antifa are a bunch of rich whites whereas Trump is happy to quote Martin Luther King? C'mon.
I'll let you think what you think, that's obviously your prerogative.
What I see is a bunch of Republicans who are arguing that people should be treated according to the content of their character, and a bunch of Democrats who think people should be treated according to the colour of their skin.
It's well documented that the Antifa rioters are white, middle-class left-wingers.
I'm genuinely agnostic as to the result, I think that both candidates will work constructively with the UK as president. Congress is also just as important when considering how a trade deal plays out.
Both the polls and the betting markets are being driven by emotional sentiment much more than factual information, as opposed to trying to understand what's actually happening on the ground in the swing states.
The polls are being driven by sentiment rather than facts? Not sure what that even means. The polls record voting intention and in any case the vote itself on Nov 3rd will be largely driven by sentiment, no?
And I'm sorry but I just cannot detect the link that you do between Trump's Republicans and Martin Luther King.
If you're benignly agnostic on the result I can only think that you have been oddly blind and deaf for 4 years and have not clocked how this guy has behaved in office and has been abusing the power and pulpit of the presidency.
Just for the record, I personally think Trump is an idiot, and almost anyone else would be a better president of the USA.
I'm genuinely trying to look at a variety of American opinion, and bring this to a betting site.
There's clear evidence at the moment that 99% of Twitter thinks DT is a f****** c***, and 90% of PB thinks he's a f****** c***, but at least 40% of Americans intend voting for him.
A significant proportion of those 40% probably also think he is a f****** c*** but also thinks he is "our f****** c***"
Well I for one am happy to hold my hands up and say I got the eat out to help out scheme completely wrong
My gut instinct was it was a silly gimmick but within an hour or so processing it I thought it was cleverer than at first glance, but then that is because I have past experience with the industry . . . but even then it took time for me to process what was being done and why it would work.
I'm glad its not been just a silly gimmick. I wonder how many jobs it has saved?
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
Well for a start I think the Govt should have moved heaven and earth to not have the exams cancelled. But yes, I agree that they were in a very difficult situation. As it happens I think they could have used the algorithm, or some version of it, as a starting point to challenge the grades offered by teachers. And maybe then by putting in the work we could have had a teacher assessment that people could accept. And there is no doubt whatsover that for the Govt to claim that they had no forewarning of what would happen until only a few weeks ago is pathetic. There was plenty of warning and it was entirely predictable. What were they doing?
But my main point wasn’t to look back. It was to ask whether the govt are now looking forward. Or are they going to find themselves again “surprised” when the follow up consequences unfold over the next few years and they put in place last minute fixes on the back of media pressure.
They are looking forward, they're making reopening of schools their number one priority to ensure this doesn't happen again. Quite right too.
Well I for one am happy to hold my hands up and say I got the eat out to help out scheme completely wrong
My gut instinct was it was a silly gimmick but within an hour or so processing it I thought it was cleverer than at first glance, but then that is because I have past experience with the industry . . . but even then it took time for me to process what was being done and why it would work.
I'm glad its not been just a silly gimmick. I wonder how many jobs it has saved?
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
I suspect we will see higher than average drop out rates on the first year. Those individuals will have wasted money and time but we will survive as a country
Well I for one am happy to hold my hands up and say I got the eat out to help out scheme completely wrong
My gut instinct was it was a silly gimmick but within an hour or so processing it I thought it was cleverer than at first glance, but then that is because I have past experience with the industry . . . but even then it took time for me to process what was being done and why it would work.
I'm glad its not been just a silly gimmick. I wonder how many jobs it has saved?
Long term will be interesting
Almost any business that has reopened and survives to next Summer will probably be fine. My worry would be if businesses that are summer-seasonal have had enough trade this year to survive through the winter months. December is traditionally a good month but will only be so this year if people feel safe to have Christmas Parties, November and January can be horrid. If people don't feel safe to have their annual Christmas Party this year then that will be a death knell to many businesses.
If it was up to me I'd redo this scheme for January.
The thing to look for in every poll is or are the crosstabs. What is the sampling - are Democrats, Independents or Republicans being over-sampled? Rasmussen and Trafalgar hide their crosstabs behind a paywall - if someone could find them and publish them we'd see if they were over-sampling Republicans and perhaps Independents.
In 2016, 37% of those who voted were registered Democrats, 33% Republicans and 31% Independents (rounded). Now, @rcs1000 tells us the number of registered Republicans has fallen further so would 37% Dem, 33% Ind and 30% Republican be more accurate?
In 2016, 70% of those who voted were White, 12% were Black and 11% Hispanic. Whites voted 58-37 for Trump but would they still be 70% of voters or down a little?
The 90% of previous voters in 2016 split equally 47-47 but the 10% of first time voters went 56-40 for Clinton thus giving her a 2% advantage.
So, taking the Economist/YouGov out today which puts Biden ahead 50-41.
The voter split is 37.6% Democrat, 35.4% Independent (43-39 for Biden) and 27% Republican so is that under-sampling Republicans and over-sampling Independents?
The ethnic split is 71% White (48-44 for Trump), 12% Black and 12% Hispanic (rounded).
The geographic split has Biden up a point in the Midwest and up four points in the South which represents more than a third of the total vote. The South went for Trump 52-44 but he now trails 43-47 so that's a 6% swing to Biden in this area while in the Midwest which Trump won 49-45 last time he trails 46-47 so just a 2.5% swing to Biden.
MY current view is Biden is putting on votes where he doesn't need them - in his strongholds in the North East and West but also in strong Republican areas. In Virginia, Clinton won by 5 but Biden is up by 14 so again as I've mentioned before that swing of 3-6% to Biden but in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona it is much closer.
Trump is polling badly where he has no chance or where he is safe but is doing well enough where he needs to keep himself in the election. However, Biden has eked out a 2-3% swing in the battleground which would be enough to see him take back a number of swing states.
I cannot believe for a nanosecond Biden and the Democrats are in any way complacent. They remember 2016 and will be as resolute for every vote as Labour was in 1997 after the brutal defeat of 1992 - the parallels are there.
Yup, this is how trump wins despite the national polling picture looking bleak. Trump had a freakish level of vote efficiency in 2016, he would need to repeat that again plus a little more in 2020.
The thing to look for in every poll is or are the crosstabs. What is the sampling - are Democrats, Independents or Republicans being over-sampled? Rasmussen and Trafalgar hide their crosstabs behind a paywall - if someone could find them and publish them we'd see if they were over-sampling Republicans and perhaps Independents.
In 2016, 37% of those who voted were registered Democrats, 33% Republicans and 31% Independents (rounded). Now, @rcs1000 tells us the number of registered Republicans has fallen further so would 37% Dem, 33% Ind and 30% Republican be more accurate?
In 2016, 70% of those who voted were White, 12% were Black and 11% Hispanic. Whites voted 58-37 for Trump but would they still be 70% of voters or down a little?
The 90% of previous voters in 2016 split equally 47-47 but the 10% of first time voters went 56-40 for Clinton thus giving her a 2% advantage.
So, taking the Economist/YouGov out today which puts Biden ahead 50-41.
The voter split is 37.6% Democrat, 35.4% Independent (43-39 for Biden) and 27% Republican so is that under-sampling Republicans and over-sampling Independents?
The ethnic split is 71% White (48-44 for Trump), 12% Black and 12% Hispanic (rounded).
The geographic split has Biden up a point in the Midwest and up four points in the South which represents more than a third of the total vote. The South went for Trump 52-44 but he now trails 43-47 so that's a 6% swing to Biden in this area while in the Midwest which Trump won 49-45 last time he trails 46-47 so just a 2.5% swing to Biden.
MY current view is Biden is putting on votes where he doesn't need them - in his strongholds in the North East and West but also in strong Republican areas. In Virginia, Clinton won by 5 but Biden is up by 14 so again as I've mentioned before that swing of 3-6% to Biden but in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona it is much closer.
Trump is polling badly where he has no chance or where he is safe but is doing well enough where he needs to keep himself in the election. However, Biden has eked out a 2-3% swing in the battleground which would be enough to see him take back a number of swing states.
I cannot believe for a nanosecond Biden and the Democrats are in any way complacent. They remember 2016 and will be as resolute for every vote as Labour was in 1997 after the brutal defeat of 1992 - the parallels are there.
Careful about the registration thing, in a lot of states you do not register based on party affiliation, and the ones where you do skew towards blue states that have moved increasingly Democrat. This is an area i'm unsure rcs1000 is on stable ground in his analysis.
Pew has looked at party affiliation in registered voter polls.
A new analysis by Pew Research Center of long-term trends in party affiliation – based on surveys conducted among more than 360,000 registered voters over the past 25 years, including more than 12,000 in 2018 and 2019 – finds only modest changes in recent years.
Overall, 34% of registered voters identify as independents, 33% as Democrats and 29% as Republicans. The share of voters identifying as Republicans is now the same as it was in 2016, after having ticked down in 2017; Democratic identification is unchanged. Slightly fewer voters identify as independents than in 2017 (34% vs. 37%). See detailed tables.
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
Well for a start I think the Govt should have moved heaven and earth to not have the exams cancelled. But yes, I agree that they were in a very difficult situation. As it happens I think they could have used the algorithm, or some version of it, as a starting point to challenge the grades offered by teachers. And maybe then by putting in the work we could have had a teacher assessment that people could accept. And there is no doubt whatsover that for the Govt to claim that they had no forewarning of what would happen until only a few weeks ago is pathetic. There was plenty of warning and it was entirely predictable. What were they doing?
But my main point wasn’t to look back. It was to ask whether the govt are now looking forward. Or are they going to find themselves again “surprised” when the follow up consequences unfold over the next few years and they put in place last minute fixes on the back of media pressure.
They are looking forward, they're making reopening of schools their number one priority to ensure this doesn't happen again. Quite right too.
What’s that got to do with the knock on consequences for the prospective university students of the next couple of years, the current medical students who will get to the end of their courses to find there is a shortage of training places etc etc?
Fine so they’re trying to avoid repeating the mistakes they’ve already made. Those inside the education profession will have their own views on the extent to which this extends beyond an aspiration to actually taking positive measures to allow it to happen. Beyond simply stating “it’s safe” and changing the definition of “safe” every few days.
It would be nice to have a bit more confidence if they could foresee, plan for and avoid new mistakes in the future.
To be honest I think it is highly likely that he genuinely believes it. And that his Govt bears no responsibility for it whatsoever, no responsibility for asking the tough questions (after numerous warnings from within the profession and from parliamentary committees etc) that might have headed off the problems in advance.
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
Yeah, yeah, yeah . . .
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
Well for a start I think the Govt should have moved heaven and earth to not have the exams cancelled. But yes, I agree that they were in a very difficult situation. As it happens I think they could have used the algorithm, or some version of it, as a starting point to challenge the grades offered by teachers. And maybe then by putting in the work we could have had a teacher assessment that people could accept. And there is no doubt whatsover that for the Govt to claim that they had no forewarning of what would happen until only a few weeks ago is pathetic. There was plenty of warning and it was entirely predictable. What were they doing?
But my main point wasn’t to look back. It was to ask whether the govt are now looking forward. Or are they going to find themselves again “surprised” when the follow up consequences unfold over the next few years and they put in place last minute fixes on the back of media pressure.
They are looking forward, they're making reopening of schools their number one priority to ensure this doesn't happen again. Quite right too.
What’s that got to do with the knock on consequences for the prospective university students of the next couple of years, the current medical students who will get to the end of their courses to find there is a shortage of training places etc etc?
Fine so they’re trying to avoid repeating the mistakes they’ve already made. Those inside the education profession will have their own views on the extent to which this extends beyond an aspiration to actually taking positive measures to allow it to happen. Beyond simply stating “it’s safe” and changing the definition of “safe” every few days.
It would be nice to have a bit more confidence if they could foresee, plan for and avoid new mistakes in the future.
The government's been banging on about how it wants more doctors and nurses, create more training places. Bish, bash, bosh - two birds with one stone.
A new analysis by Pew Research Center of long-term trends in party affiliation – based on surveys conducted among more than 360,000 registered voters over the past 25 years, including more than 12,000 in 2018 and 2019 – finds only modest changes in recent years.
Overall, 34% of registered voters identify as independents, 33% as Democrats and 29% as Republicans. The share of voters identifying as Republicans is now the same as it was in 2016, after having ticked down in 2017; Democratic identification is unchanged. Slightly fewer voters identify as independents than in 2017 (34% vs. 37%). See detailed tables.
That's an interesting an useful analysis. The question then becomes one of turnout among the three groups. I've heard it said Democrats stayed at home in 2016 but they still represented 37% of the vote so the nuance might be SOME Democrats in key areas stayed at home and that. combined with an efficient GOP vote and a stronger pro-Trump performance among Independents than expected allowed Trump to pick up a number of swing states in the Midwest and South that got him across the line.
The split in votes cast last time was 37% Dem, 33% GOP and 31% Ind. The Independents went 47-42 for Trump which was crucial but the Economist/YouGov tonight puts Biden ahead among that group 43-39 so a 4% move to Biden - similar to what we are seeing across the State polls in the swing states.
Florida is the key state. If Biden wins there, he's home and dry.
Florida is also one of the worst hit states by the virus, so Biden should find it easier to win there. However, the margin is still small enough for suburban and rural whites to turn out for Trump on the day.
IIRC there was also a proposition passed in 2018 in Florida, to give the vote to felons released from prison. Apparently there's a million felons in Florida, and they likely lean Dem - if they turn out.
In such a marginal state it might make a difference, there's a lot of small effects in the state - it's likely going to be too close to call on the night.
That's a very American law report, in a weird-to-outsiders system where the judges are all political appointees.
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
The Dems didn't push remotely hard on the Supreme Court issue. They were pathetic on it. For reasons that escape me GOP voters totally understand the importance of judges (at all levels, not just Supreme Court) whilst Dem voters are totally apathetic on the issue.
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Surely it shouldn't be too difficult to run a bunch of ads in marginal states saying that a Trump victory results in Roe v Wade being overturned?
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Are they though?
Those that are watching MSNBC are the choir, if the Dems want to spend $10m preaching to them...
How do you know what the target voters are watching? That’s what I’m asking. What evidence is there that YouTube would have been a better use of 10m dollars?
The Dems spent $10m around the TV coverage of their conference, targeting those that were watching it already.
The Reps spent $1m on adverting on the front page online of a major newspaper, and $1m more on advertising to EVERYONE IN THE USA WHO WAS ON YOUTUBE THAT DAY. Not everyone that was following politics or the convention, every single American who was on YouTube.
The Dems could have taken up both online opportunities, but for some reason chose not to.
And do we know the voting intention of those who use YouTube? Maybe it’s not worth it.
I’ll take a random guess that there’s way more undecided voters on the front page of Youtube, than there are watching Rachel Maddow covering the DNC on MSNBC.
I’ll also take a random guess that the media coverage arising from the fact that Trump plunked the Dems with two huge ad buys on the day of Biden’s speech, was not only worth it to the Republicans but should have been anticipated and covered by the Dems.
It plays into the narrative that, as in 2016, the Dems are massively complacent and talking only to their base.
Guardian: Conservative MPs expressed alarm to whips and ministers before the government U-turn on masks in schools, after which the government decided to only partially enforce face coverings, Tory sources have claimed.
Whitehall sources briefed on Tuesday afternoon that the government was planning to follow Scotland’s lead and impose mandatory face masks for secondary school pupils in communal areas.
After rumours emerged of the U-turn, at least 20 MPs, many of whom had not spoken out publicly, expressed both public and private alarm to party whips, ministers and government advisers, the Guardian understands.
Guardian: Conservative MPs expressed alarm to whips and ministers before the government U-turn on masks in schools, after which the government decided to only partially enforce face coverings, Tory sources have claimed.
Whitehall sources briefed on Tuesday afternoon that the government was planning to follow Scotland’s lead and impose mandatory face masks for secondary school pupils in communal areas.
After rumours emerged of the U-turn, at least 20 MPs, many of whom had not spoken out publicly, expressed both public and private alarm to party whips, ministers and government advisers, the Guardian understands.
Will that be the same idiots who didn't want masks in shops I wonder?
Thank goodness the government isn't bowing to such nonsense.
Hmm, I wonder who they might tie up with. O2 is merging with Virgin/Liberty, Vodafone perhaps?
I reckon they'll go for the BT Group.
They can get that for a little more than they were prepared to buy o2 for.
They'll have to sell spectrum if they merge with EE - but their networks have commonalities with MBNL already.
A few networks will be glad about EE being forced to sell spectrum.
No doubt about that.
Three seems to have pretty much given out on competing at scale with Vodafone and EE, probably not surprising if they'll just buy one of those anyway.
Personally I think BT is running EE into the ground but there you are
Three's model appears to be designed for people who want an AYCE data allowance without a FUP, I think o2's FUP is 650GB and EE's is something similar.
In the long term BT buying EE will be bad for EE users, I know they've integrated EE into BT but BT's long term problems will see EE's profits and cost cutting funding those long term BT problems.
The polarising nature of the 2020 US election is reflected in the writing which confounds and confuses in equal measures.
I suppose there's a tempting view that neither candidate is worth voting FOR but both candidates are worth voting AGAINST.
Part of me suspects one or two on here are backing Trump simply because, as provocateurs, they want to rub it in the faces of the "lefties" and the "wokeristas" (whatever those words actually mean).
Maybe and that's their right unhelpful though it is. I found it interesting watching the Klacik campaign video how it's easy to point out the problems and much harder to come up with solutions.
The reasons for Baltimore being how it is or East Ham being how it is are not to do with decades of one-party rule - they are more profound. I'm tempted to argue every city in every nation from Lake Geneva to the Finland Station has its richer and poorer areas and if you are poor that limits where you live.
The problem with "gentrifying" areas like Hackney, Shoreditch or East Ham (!) are it doesn't solve the problem of poverty in cities - it moves it somewhere else. The demand for housing for poorer people leads to denser housing with all that flows from it. Again, that's not the fault of Labour or the Democrats.
I don't see how voting GOP in Baltimore or Conservative in East Ham would make a scintilla of difference - to make East Ham not East Ham and more like Sutton or Kingston would change it irrevocably and who would benefit from that?
The polls have closed in the most important political event of the year - LD leadership election!!
Has Layla done it?!
No, it will almost certainly be Davey
I agree although that will be boring!
'No personality' LD leader as well as one for LAB
As opposed to a "lots of personality but no leadership or competency skills" leader for the Tories. Leading a political party or a country is not meant to be a gameshow. It is a serious business, but then those that have been gulled by the fat clown still don't get it.
Presumably that's why CON are still ahead in the polls!
Long wait for those who want to see LAB or LD in power...
That's all you Bozo apologists care about. Your understanding of the exercise of power is as vacuous and childish as his is. Not a care about whether the country is well run, but the polls. The Tory Party is a sad shadow of its once respectable self, and its membership is personified by dimwits who think the only thing that matters is "the polls".
I have been a Tory voter all of my adult life until the last election. Whatever the polls say now, there is a reasonable chance that the value vacuum that is Boris Johnson will, by the time of the next election deliver a massive no-deal induced recession and the breakup of the UK and a total collapse in Conservative support. After the next election the Tories may well be out for a generation.
A no-deal might lead to Tory defeat yes, breakup of the UK though would actually increase the chances of a Tory majority given the Tories won a majority of only 80 in the UK at GE19 but had a majority of 157 in England alone
Yes, but there would need to be a completely new constitutional settlement or Wales might go the same way. Also you are assuming that the Tory shires would forgive such astonishing incompetence as allowing the breakup of the UK on the Tory watch. Tories that assume an rUK would be automatically more Tory are as complacent as those in Labour who thought Scotland would always be their fiefdom
Of course it would, England would swing further to the Nationalist right if the UK broke up to ensure no easy deal for the SNP and Edinburgh post Scexit much as the remainder of the EU has taken a tough line with the UK post Brexit. It was the breakup of the USSR which led to Putin in Russia after all as the Nationalist backlash there.
Labour only lost Scotland as its voters went to another leftwing party, the SNP, just a Nationalist one, the Tories would only lose England for the foreseeable future if their vote went to another rightwing party, the Brexit Party, also a Nationalist Party under Farage, as happened in the 2019 European elections. Labour has not won most votes in England since 2001 and the Tories won a majority in England in 2010 and 2017 so if Wales went the Tories would be even more likely to win given Wales is the last Labour fiefdom of the home nations.
Though Boris has made clear he will block indyref2 anyway
The greatest trick the SNP ever pulled is to convince people it is left wing.
Well on that it is probably a bit confused. The clue is in the word "nationalist". Not exclusively right wing historically, but it is essentially a right wing divisive sentiment that appeals to those that are reactionary. The thing that amuses me is when they say they are "progressive nationalists" which is oxymoronic, or maybe we should just remove the oxy bit
Hmm, I wonder who they might tie up with. O2 is merging with Virgin/Liberty, Vodafone perhaps?
I reckon they'll go for the BT Group.
They can get that for a little more than they were prepared to buy o2 for.
They'll have to sell spectrum if they merge with EE - but their networks have commonalities with MBNL already.
A few networks will be glad about EE being forced to sell spectrum.
No doubt about that.
Three seems to have pretty much given out on competing at scale with Vodafone and EE, probably not surprising if they'll just buy one of those anyway.
Personally I think BT is running EE into the ground but there you are
Three's model appears to be designed for people who want an AYCE data allowance without a FUP, I think o2's FUP is 650GB and EE's is something similar.
In the long term BT buying EE will be bad for EE users, I know they've integrated EE into BT but BT's long term problems will see EE's profits and cost cutting funding those long term BT problems.
Hello from DS, BTW.
I think we'd all benefit from Openreach being split off from BT.
Comments
The guy’s just a massive bluffer who is too lazy to even attempt to understand issues beyond an extremely superficial level. And he probably thinks that the issue is now “fixed”. Never mind that more knowledgeable people within education and elsewhere (eg. NHS) can see that the consequences of the last few weeks are going to have an impact for years to come. As students fill courses that they aren’t suited for, as they delay the time when they get that wake up call that doing serious exams that matters, as the capacity issues filter into the next few years, as we spend years training medical students who will find they don’t have jobs to go to, or as opportunity is denied to the students of the future...
I imagine that, as they did in 2016, the Dems are going to push hard on the Supreme Court as a campaigning issue. If there's a Republican president, he probably gets to send two more fortysomethings to lifetime appointments.
Total borrowing is equivalent to £2,776 per person in Scotland, compared to £855 per person across the UK as a whole.
. . . if you're whinging about "students filling courses that they aren't suited for" then can you please identify how, without exams, you believe that those students should have been identified? What better solution do you have genius, without going back to March and keeping schools open and having the exams afterall?
I haven't seen any decent research on the issue to explain why.
Gee there's a shocker! I assumed he'd have been planning a book on theoretical astrophysics.
Just ask Greece.
I don't understand the Dem strategy though, they let Trump buy the front page of the Washington Post online and a massive YouTube banner ad in the middle of the Dem convention last week. The Dems bought a load of TV advertising, at 10x the price - but everyone's watching online, not on TV.
Despite the fact that SCOTUS has been weaponised and conservative for most of modern history, I don't think liberals have such a totemic issue that touches them like Roe v Wade does.
How very EU.
Just like how Remainers here cared much more after we voted to Leave than they did before we voted to Leave. Sometimes you don't appreciate what you've got til its gone.
And I'm sorry but I just cannot detect the link that you do between Trump's Republicans and Martin Luther King.
If you're benignly agnostic on the result I can only think that you have been oddly blind and deaf for 4 years and have not clocked how this guy has behaved in office and has been abusing the power and pulpit of the presidency.
I'm genuinely trying to look at a variety of American opinion, and bring this to a betting site.
There's clear evidence at the moment that 99% of Twitter thinks DT is a f****** c***, and 90% of PB thinks he's a f****** c***, but at least 40% of Americans intend voting for him.
“We’re the highest ever”
“No you’re not, your only the highest in 20 years”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8665695/Eat-Help-diners-battle-book-final-days-50-off.html
The Reps spent $1m on adverting on the front page online of a major newspaper, and $1m more on advertising to EVERYONE IN THE USA WHO WAS ON YOUTUBE THAT DAY. Not everyone that was following politics or the convention, every single American who was on YouTube.
The Dems could have taken up both online opportunities, but for some reason chose not to.
If your trade is up now with mountains of free publicity then keeping it going is quite logical.
Facebook Says Apple's iOS 14 Anti-Tracking Features Will Cut 50% of its Audience Network Ad Revenue.
Facebook today warned advertisers that Apple's upcoming anti-tracking tools could cause a more than 50 percent drop in Audience Network publisher revenue due to the removal of personalization from ads within apps.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/facebook-ios-14-anti-tracking-ad-revenue-drop/
In 2016, 37% of those who voted were registered Democrats, 33% Republicans and 31% Independents (rounded). Now, @rcs1000 tells us the number of registered Republicans has fallen further so would 37% Dem, 33% Ind and 30% Republican be more accurate?
In 2016, 70% of those who voted were White, 12% were Black and 11% Hispanic. Whites voted 58-37 for Trump but would they still be 70% of voters or down a little?
The 90% of previous voters in 2016 split equally 47-47 but the 10% of first time voters went 56-40 for Clinton thus giving her a 2% advantage.
So, taking the Economist/YouGov out today which puts Biden ahead 50-41.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/sqqliantmw/econTabReport.pdf
The voter split is 37.6% Democrat, 35.4% Independent (43-39 for Biden) and 27% Republican so is that under-sampling Republicans and over-sampling Independents?
The ethnic split is 71% White (48-44 for Trump), 12% Black and 12% Hispanic (rounded).
The geographic split has Biden up a point in the Midwest and up four points in the South which represents more than a third of the total vote. The South went for Trump 52-44 but he now trails 43-47 so that's a 6% swing to Biden in this area while in the Midwest which Trump won 49-45 last time he trails 46-47 so just a 2.5% swing to Biden.
MY current view is Biden is putting on votes where he doesn't need them - in his strongholds in the North East and West but also in strong Republican areas. In Virginia, Clinton won by 5 but Biden is up by 14 so again as I've mentioned before that swing of 3-6% to Biden but in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona it is much closer.
Trump is polling badly where he has no chance or where he is safe but is doing well enough where he needs to keep himself in the election. However, Biden has eked out a 2-3% swing in the battleground which would be enough to see him take back a number of swing states.
I cannot believe for a nanosecond Biden and the Democrats are in any way complacent. They remember 2016 and will be as resolute for every vote as Labour was in 1997 after the brutal defeat of 1992 - the parallels are there.
(Spoiler alert: this could be the answer for your next 70 killer points)
But my main point wasn’t to look back. It was to ask whether the govt are now looking forward. Or are they going to find themselves again “surprised” when the follow up consequences unfold over the next few years and they put in place last minute fixes on the back of media pressure.
All medicines are a mix of risk and reward
I'm glad its not been just a silly gimmick. I wonder how many jobs it has saved?
Having a really satisfying poo
If it was up to me I'd redo this scheme for January.
Pew has looked at party affiliation in registered voter polls.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/02/in-changing-u-s-electorate-race-and-education-remain-stark-dividing-lines/
Overall, 34% of registered voters identify as independents, 33% as Democrats and 29% as Republicans. The share of voters identifying as Republicans is now the same as it was in 2016, after having ticked down in 2017; Democratic identification is unchanged. Slightly fewer voters identify as independents than in 2017 (34% vs. 37%). See detailed tables.
Fine so they’re trying to avoid repeating the mistakes they’ve already made. Those inside the education profession will have their own views on the extent to which this extends beyond an aspiration to actually taking positive measures to allow it to happen. Beyond simply stating “it’s safe” and changing the definition of “safe” every few days.
It would be nice to have a bit more confidence if they could foresee, plan for and avoid new mistakes in the future.
Hmm, I wonder who they might tie up with. O2 is merging with Virgin/Liberty, Vodafone perhaps?
Whomp whomp
As predicted, the government now look like idiots for exempting Portugal and adding Austria to the quarantine policy on the same day.
They can get that for a little more than they were prepared to buy o2 for.
Is it just me ?
The split in votes cast last time was 37% Dem, 33% GOP and 31% Ind. The Independents went 47-42 for Trump which was crucial but the Economist/YouGov tonight puts Biden ahead among that group 43-39 so a 4% move to Biden - similar to what we are seeing across the State polls in the swing states.
I’ll also take a random guess that the media coverage arising from the fact that Trump plunked the Dems with two huge ad buys on the day of Biden’s speech, was not only worth it to the Republicans but should have been anticipated and covered by the Dems.
It plays into the narrative that, as in 2016, the Dems are massively complacent and talking only to their base.
Whitehall sources briefed on Tuesday afternoon that the government was planning to follow Scotland’s lead and impose mandatory face masks for secondary school pupils in communal areas.
After rumours emerged of the U-turn, at least 20 MPs, many of whom had not spoken out publicly, expressed both public and private alarm to party whips, ministers and government advisers, the Guardian understands.
That one was easy.
Thank goodness the government isn't bowing to such nonsense.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/portugal/
With
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/austria/
and then maybe have another try, not so glib this time?
Three seems to have pretty much given out on competing at scale with Vodafone and EE, probably not surprising if they'll just buy one of those anyway.
Personally I think BT is running EE into the ground but there you are
I've also visited lots of restaurants
In the long term BT buying EE will be bad for EE users, I know they've integrated EE into BT but BT's long term problems will see EE's profits and cost cutting funding those long term BT problems.
The polarising nature of the 2020 US election is reflected in the writing which confounds and confuses in equal measures.
I suppose there's a tempting view that neither candidate is worth voting FOR but both candidates are worth voting AGAINST.
Part of me suspects one or two on here are backing Trump simply because, as provocateurs, they want to rub it in the faces of the "lefties" and the "wokeristas" (whatever those words actually mean).
Maybe and that's their right unhelpful though it is. I found it interesting watching the Klacik campaign video how it's easy to point out the problems and much harder to come up with solutions.
The reasons for Baltimore being how it is or East Ham being how it is are not to do with decades of one-party rule - they are more profound. I'm tempted to argue every city in every nation from Lake Geneva to the Finland Station has its richer and poorer areas and if you are poor that limits where you live.
The problem with "gentrifying" areas like Hackney, Shoreditch or East Ham (!) are it doesn't solve the problem of poverty in cities - it moves it somewhere else. The demand for housing for poorer people leads to denser housing with all that flows from it. Again, that's not the fault of Labour or the Democrats.
I don't see how voting GOP in Baltimore or Conservative in East Ham would make a scintilla of difference - to make East Ham not East Ham and more like Sutton or Kingston would change it irrevocably and who would benefit from that?
I think we'd all benefit from Openreach being split off from BT.