The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
Interesting that we are finding something like 1/3 to 1/2 of *all* infections.
Maybe we have reached the natural level and this is how it will be going forward? Seems likely we will have to live with this virus for a very long time, like flu and common cold.
Very few are dying or in hospital.
Living with the disease is going to require substantial permanent suppression, either through annual vaccinations that are at least partially effective, or much better treatments than we currently have, or both.
The Government and a large chunk of the population are still very frightened of the disease, as will be confirmed if and when the first signs of a continental-style spike appear and there's an orgy of panic-flapping (likely to include masks ordered everywhere, press speculation about a second national lockdown, and possibly the closure of pubs.) Regardless of how much of the reaction is down to logic and how much due to blind, hysterical terror, we're not going to be able to re-establish a liveable, sustainable economy and society until a large enough majority of the populace is sufficiently reassured that it's safe to go about their business.
If people obey the rules to the letter things will be fine, learn what they are and live by them. Some things will remain closed, dance clubs, music venues etc but the freedom to have a meal out, mix carefully with friends and family (whilst obeying the rules) etc should be enough surely?
I’m not sure from this post whether you are viewing “the rules” as a temporary or permanent feature of life. Because if the latter then following “the rules” to the letter would arguably lead to the dying out of the human race within relatively short timescale. How do you meet/make new friends, and by extension develop new relationships and new families in a world where you are effectively required to treat your existing family and social groups as those that you must stick with for ever.
And for a disease which, however allegedly uniquely dangerous compared to what has gone before, is effectively harmless to the vast majority of the population? However many anecdotal cases are cited to warn young people that they are risking their own health by not obeying “the rules” most recognise the reality that they really are not. They are asked to obey the rules for the health of others. Ultimately in the long run that is not sustainable.
Until there is a vaccine or continued improvement in treatments that make people feel safe to go out, I doubt very much that it will end human civilization, I don’t think there is a free pass for people under 30 with the bug but the odds are clearly in their favor if they get it. Just don’t go round to grandmas and hug her if you have been mixing in large groups without distancing.
It's worth reiterating at this point that Covid-19 represents a very low risk to the young - and that includes younger adults as well as children.
The current median age of the UK population is about 40 - thus, obviously, half of the population (about 33.3 million people) are under that age. According to the most recent NHS England weekly bulletin, Covid-19 has so far killed 235 people under the age of 40 (of whom 197 had underlying comorbidities.) Now, if we make two fairly reasonable assumptions - that there would have been very few if any deaths of under 40s from Covid-19 outside of hospitals in England, and that the death rate would've been similar in the rest of the country - then this would imply that approximately 280 people under 40 have so far died of the disease in the UK.
That would, in turn, suggest a death rate for the pandemic so far of around 8 per million for the younger half of the population as whole, or about one in a million for those who are otherwise healthy.
It is on this basis that the young are being told not merely to be a bit careful with masks, and social distancing, and staying away from Granny, but also not to go to parties, to visit each others' homes (except under quite narrow restrictions,) or to date, form new relationships and have sex. If not all of them follow these edicts to the letter 100% of the time then we should not be entirely surprised.
If they are prepared to stick to the rules when mixing with older people and those with comorbidities (effectively everywhere where it’s not just under 40’s) then let them get on with it, but many won’t because they are incapable of differentiating between the two sets of circumstances. The same can be said of over 40’s who want to behave like kids without a moments thought about the consequences.
Levitt: "at some point we need to make curves like this for flu and then people will say, oh I didn't realise influenza was so terrible, and I didn't get upset about it, so therefore why am I getting so upset about something that is as lethal [the coronavirus]"
We already are. I think he may have this entirely wrong - the trend will be about learning to control viral outbreaks. We’re not going to unlearn the things we have learned.
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
The trouble for the Dems is every time a black person is shot or assaulted by a cop, BLM get angry and demonstrate, and undecided voters may get edgy.
Unfortunately it seems, an assault of some nature by a cop on a black person occurs very regularly.
Trump now up to 55% approval with over 65s, 51% approval with white voters, 47% approval with men, 48% approval with voters earning $50 to $100k a year, 50% approval in the South and 48% approval in the MidWest.
However he still has a 58% disapproval rating with voters under 30, a 73% disapproval rating with black voters, a 53% disapproval rating with women and a 60% disappproval rating with voters in the West and a 53% disapproval rating with voters in the NorthEast.
That poll is a few days old (fieldwork Aug 25-27), and there's a more recent YouGov out (27-28) that has his approval-disapproval back out at 40%-55%.
Basically, the daily YouGov seesaws wildly and you should be careful of reading too much into individual days.
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
The trouble for the Dems is every time a black person is shot or assaulted by a cop, BLM get angry and demonstrate, and undecided voters may get edgy.
Unfortunately it seems, an assault of some nature by a cop on a black person occurs very regularly.
If I were conspiracy minded (I'm not), I would find it very suspicious that both these killings happened in the Midwest, in highly marginal states.
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
The trouble for the Dems is every time a black person is shot or assaulted by a cop, BLM get angry and demonstrate, and undecided voters may get edgy.
Unfortunately it seems, an assault of some nature by a cop on a black person occurs very regularly.
If I were conspiracy minded (I'm not), I would find it very suspicious that both these killings happened in the Midwest, in highly marginal states.
In some respects that theory is less troublesome than the probable reality, namely that US police services are indeed institutionally racist.
Interesting that we are finding something like 1/3 to 1/2 of *all* infections.
Maybe we have reached the natural level and this is how it will be going forward? Seems likely we will have to live with this virus for a very long time, like flu and common cold.
Very few are dying or in hospital.
Technically it *is* an offshoot of the common cold, i.e. it's much more closely-related to that than to flu viruses. As we hear, some people are permanently damaged by COVID-19. It's possible to suffer lifelong harm to one's health after a bad cold. Ed Gamble for instance developed type 1 diabetes
The search for a vaccine for the common cold was abandoned ~30 years ago, i.e. it wasn't cost-effective. Harsh for those whose health suffers but probably the right decision for society. It may be similar with SARS-COV-2. Prof. Levitt in his interview condemned the money being spent on track and trace compared to the benefit these £ billions could bring if they were spent elsewhere.
Technically, it’s not. The common cold is a large mix of viruses, the majority rhinoviruses (numerous different ones), and about 15% coronaviruses. And it’s not an offshoot, as it comes from bats, not other common cold coronaviruses.
Comparing the two things, and the cost/benefit of developing vaccines, is just silly.
All the comment articles claiming that Trump is going to win are often based on the same failed assumptions that convinced them that Corbyn would win in 2019 - exaggeration of the power of social media. There are plenty of sensible middle of the road voters who will recognise that it is Trump’s divisiveness that is the problem and the main priority is to get him out of the way. Moderate Democrats like Biden and Harris are not going to let the far left destroy their Presidency. And will have far greater motivation to confront it than Trump will.
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
Surely it is what voters see on their social media and cable news that counts not what they see in their own State?
I think it's a mixture. When something is on TV it's one level removed from you.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
2 months ago I was convinced Trump was finished. Not so sure now. Either way I think it will be a shitshow. Disputed and lawyer and protesting mobs heavy. Just the way Trump wants it. Would be ironic if he genuinely won fairly, but had so undermined trust in the process that he was seen as illegitimate in the eyes of the World.
Trump already is seen as illegiitimate in the eyes of much of the world, with only 29% of voters globally having confidence in him, however in India, the Philippines, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria and India over 50% of voters have confidence in the President, as do 44% in the Ukraine ie he is about as popular in Eastern Europe (outside Russia) as he is in the USA
It’s very easy to write an opinion piece which starts with a very simplistic analysis that concludes that Trump will win. Just as people did (often retrospectively) about Brexit. Or Trump in 2016. But then they also did the same with Sindy. At the end of the day (ignoring voter suppression and fraud) all that matters is votes cast.
One simple question. Will voters on balance have moved towards Trump since 2016? It’s difficult to find too many reasons why they should.
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
Surely it is what voters see on their social media and cable news that counts not what they see in their own State?
I think it's a mixture. When something is on TV it's one level removed from you.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
But now it may resurface.
I think that's a pretty weak argument to be honest, Robert.
I wasn't there, in person, to see and hear Edward Colston get pulled down in Bristol, the marches against Rhodes in Oxford and the unpleasant displays against the cenotaph and Churchill in Westminster.
It still left a very big political impact on me.
Right now, Biden is just talking to his base on this.
2 months ago I was convinced Trump was finished. Not so sure now. Either way I think it will be a shitshow. Disputed and lawyer and protesting mobs heavy. Just the way Trump wants it. Would be ironic if he genuinely won fairly, but had so undermined trust in the process that he was seen as illegitimate in the eyes of the World.
Trump already is seen as illegiitimate in the eyes of much of the world, with only 29% of voters globally having confidence in him, however in India, the Philippines, Israel, Kenya, Nigeria and India over 50% of voters have confidence in the President, as do 44% in the Ukraine ie he is about as popular in Eastern Europe (outside Russia) as he is in the USA
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
Surely it is what voters see on their social media and cable news that counts not what they see in their own State?
I think it's a mixture. When something is on TV it's one level removed from you.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
But now it may resurface.
I think that's a pretty weak argument to be honest, Robert.
I wasn't there, in person, to see and hear Edward Colston get pulled down in Bristol, the marches against Rhodes in Oxford and the unpleasant displays against the cenotaph and Churchill in Westminster.
It still left a very big political impact on me.
Right now, Biden is just talking to his base on this.
He's taking a huge risk.
Well Trump is talking to his base as well. This is all happening on Trump’s watch and there’s only so much he can do to deflect from that. Why should voters accept that thing would be worse under Biden? How much worse can they get?
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
Surely it is what voters see on their social media and cable news that counts not what they see in their own State?
I think it's a mixture. When something is on TV it's one level removed from you.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
But now it may resurface.
If you'd grown up in the US you might feel things happening on the TV more directly.
On tonight's Opinium then it still gives Cons 304, Labour 259, SNP 58 and LDs 6.
So hung parliament and Starmer needs both the SNP to back him to have more MPs than the Tories and the LDs and Plaid and the Greens too for an overall majority
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
The trouble for the Dems is every time a black person is shot or assaulted by a cop, BLM get angry and demonstrate, and undecided voters may get edgy.
Unfortunately it seems, an assault of some nature by a cop on a black person occurs very regularly.
I'm a WWC swing voter. I think America has a problem and I'm supportive of some change. I want to listen and learn. But, I love sport. It's a refuge from work, politics and domesticity. I love going to the game and losing myself in it.
Then, I see one of my favourite teams abandon a sports game and walk out due to their desire to make a BLM protest.
I see Joe Biden tweeting about it, and entirely in supportive of it.
I was on the fence. Is this going to make me more likely to support Joe Biden, or is it going to really piss me off?
On tonight's Opinium then it still gives Cons 304, Labour 259, SNP 58 and LDs 6.
So hung parliament and Starmer needs both the SNP to back him to have more MPs than the Tories and the LDs and Plaid and the Greens too for an overall majority
SNP plus LDs and SDLP would be enough given that SF fail to take their seats.
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
For Labour to poll 40% and still be seen as pretty divided, incompetent and unpatriotic is the most astonishing thing, I thought we'd be stuck in the 30s forever at one point
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
What Trump turf does he need to take him on on that he is currently not?
Is this code for saying Biden needs to dial up the racism?
Mail reports an near exponential rise in cases in FR in stark terms.
Yet the death graph is flat.
Look at what happened in the US state of Georgia. Deaths were falling as new cases rose astronomically.
Then deaths exploded upwards hitting over 60% excess mortality.
We know that the cases in France have started to climb steeply. Has this yet been reflected in a rise in hospital admissions? I've been trying to use trusty Google to establish this but haven't had much success so far.
As far as America is concerned, my view on the polls remains unchanged.
Biden is doing well in his strongholds (the latest Massachusetts poll has him leading Trump 68-30) and in Republican strongholds.
Where he is struggling is where the battle will be won or lost - in the marginal states. In those Biden's swing is 2-3% while elsewhere it's more like 4-6%.
My caution about US polls related to the crosstabs - who is being sampled in terms of numbers of Republicans, Democrats and Independents as well as the ethnic breakdown?
I'd look for roughly 37-38% Democrat, 32-34% Independent and 29-31% Republican and marked variation from that would make the poll suspect.
I don't have access to the Trafalgar/Rasmussen crosstabs so are they over-sampling Republican or Independents? Having seen who voted in 2016, I suspect the other pollsters have corrected any errors in their sampling methodologies but that doesn't mean they will get it right this time.
My other view is the very low number of Undecideds (3.6% on one poll). The American electorate is highly polarised with entrenched views of both candidates. That would suggest very little movement and I'd argue neither the Conventions nor the debates are going to make a lot of difference.
This poll implies a swing from Con to Lab of 5.8%. On the basis of UNS Labour would gain 63 Tory seats to take them to 265. Some gains from SNP /Plaid coul see Labour at circa 270 seats.
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
What Trump turf does he need to take him on on that he is currently not?
Is this code for saying Biden needs to dial up the racism?
No. But that's just what an idiot on his side with jelly for brains who's advising him to lose would say.
In fact, the idea that a poll such as this should have an relevance shows everything that is wrong in politics and the conduct of Government today. Historically a Government would see its primary role as to govern in the interests of the nation, implementing their manifesto as much as possible, and in the knowledge that some of their actions would be necessarily unpopular, particularly in the short term, but that they would not be judged on their record in the round until 4-5 years hence. They would expect that many of their actions that were unpopular in the short term would be judged differently with the perspective of time. Indeed, where necessary, they would deliberately seek to stack controllable unpopular (but necessary) measures in the first half of the Parliament.
Backbenchers would get seriously jittery for at least 2 years - nobody seriously thought polls in the first half of Parliament were a reason to get worried - too much could change, focus on the alternatives were lacking, and in extremes there was plenty of time to change the leadership and direction if necessary.
And even if they were interested, many Governments would have killed for polling like this!
In fact, the idea that a poll such as this should have an relevance shows everything that is wrong in politics and the conduct of Government today. Historically a Government would see its primary role as to govern in the interests of the nation, implementing their manifesto as much as possible, and in the knowledge that some of their actions would be necessarily unpopular, particularly in the short term, but that they would not be judged on their record in the round until 4-5 years hence. They would expect that many of their actions that were unpopular in the short term would be judged differently with the perspective of time. Indeed, where necessary, they would deliberately seek to stack controllable unpopular (but necessary) measures in the first half of the Parliament.
Backbenchers would get seriously jittery for at least 2 years - nobody seriously thought polls in the first half of Parliament were a reason to get worried - too much could change, focus on the alternatives were lacking, and in extremes there was plenty of time to change the leadership and direction if necessary.
And even if they were interested, many Governments would have killed for polling like this!
For Labour to poll 40% and still be seen as pretty divided, incompetent and unpatriotic is the most astonishing thing, I thought we'd be stuck in the 30s forever at one point
Seems twitter were not far off on crossover but I did caveat my comments Horse
For Labour to poll 40% and still be seen as pretty divided, incompetent and unpatriotic is the most astonishing thing, I thought we'd be stuck in the 30s forever at one point
Seems twitter were not far off on crossover but I did caveat my comments Horse
You were almost spot on, well done Big_G_NorthWales
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
There are plenty of “never Trump” Republicans he probably has on his side as well.
Mail reports an near exponential rise in cases in FR in stark terms.
Yet the death graph is flat.
Look at what happened in the US state of Georgia. Deaths were falling as new cases rose astronomically.
Then deaths exploded upwards hitting over 60% excess mortality.
We know that the cases in France have started to climb steeply. Has this yet been reflected in a rise in hospital admissions? I've been trying to use trusty Google to establish this but haven't had much success so far.
France: It has registered 5,453 positives in the last 24 hours, reported the Ministry of Health. In addition, six deaths have been reported, bringing the death toll to 30,602. There has also been an increase among those admitted to the ICU, which have increased to 400 (+13), although the number of patients admitted to hospitals has dropped to 4,530 (-5).
I'm worried that there is no objective evidence for this change in the odds. It's a market I don't feel comfortable in until the very end.
I think the odds are changing because of the civil disturbances. The Democrats are weak on law and order, and therefore if it becomes a law and order election, they suffer. (I'd also note that the location of the latest issues, in Wisconsin, is a particular problem for the Democrats, as that was one of the two or three states which seemed easiest for them to flip.)
The question is whether the disturbances continue and grow, or whether they quieten down again.
I suspect the second is more likely, but it only takes one or two incidents to change this.
I understand, but the disturbances have been going on for two months.
From my vantage point (Los Angeles), we saw protests and demonstrations post the Floyd murder, and the it went very quiet. Other parts of the US may be different.
Surely it is what voters see on their social media and cable news that counts not what they see in their own State?
I think it's a mixture. When something is on TV it's one level removed from you.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
But now it may resurface.
I think that's a pretty weak argument to be honest, Robert.
I wasn't there, in person, to see and hear Edward Colston get pulled down in Bristol, the marches against Rhodes in Oxford and the unpleasant displays against the cenotaph and Churchill in Westminster.
It still left a very big political impact on me.
Right now, Biden is just talking to his base on this.
He's taking a huge risk.
Well Trump is talking to his base as well. This is all happening on Trump’s watch and there’s only so much he can do to deflect from that. Why should voters accept that thing would be worse under Biden? How much worse can they get?
That's confirmation bias par excellence, mixed with whataboutism. You have to be in a place (already) where you think things are atrocious and you despise Trump already for that argument to have reasonance.
My pitch to Biden would be, do you want to fucking win or not?
If you do listen to people who are actually WWC voters in the swing states who went for Trump last time and DON'T listen to those who concluded he was a cunt many years ago.
Mail reports an near exponential rise in cases in FR in stark terms.
Yet the death graph is flat.
Look at what happened in the US state of Georgia. Deaths were falling as new cases rose astronomically.
Then deaths exploded upwards hitting over 60% excess mortality.
We know that the cases in France have started to climb steeply. Has this yet been reflected in a rise in hospital admissions? I've been trying to use trusty Google to establish this but haven't had much success so far.
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
There are plenty of “never Trump” Republicans he probably has on his side as well.
They are very voluble.
What about those who've gone the other way?
This happens every election.
I'm laying Trump at present because the markets have it at about 55:44 and I think it's about 60:40 at worst and 65:35 at best.
But, 35% is 35%. It's not zero per cent. And odds and probabilities can change quickly.
36% say the BBC’s decision to have an instrumental performance of Land of Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia is bad, whereas 26% say it is a good decision.
How do they get such different answers to yesterday?
In fact, the idea that a poll such as this should have an relevance shows everything that is wrong in politics and the conduct of Government today. Historically a Government would see its primary role as to govern in the interests of the nation, implementing their manifesto as much as possible, and in the knowledge that some of their actions would be necessarily unpopular, particularly in the short term, but that they would not be judged on their record in the round until 4-5 years hence. They would expect that many of their actions that were unpopular in the short term would be judged differently with the perspective of time. Indeed, where necessary, they would deliberately seek to stack controllable unpopular (but necessary) measures in the first half of the Parliament.
Backbenchers would get seriously jittery for at least 2 years - nobody seriously thought polls in the first half of Parliament were a reason to get worried - too much could change, focus on the alternatives were lacking, and in extremes there was plenty of time to change the leadership and direction if necessary.
And even if they were interested, many Governments would have killed for polling like this!
Not following a big election win!
Margaret Thatcher's first landslide election victory (144 seat majority): 9 June 1983 First opinion poll thereafter putting Labour ahead: 13 February 1984
Result of 1987 General Election: second Thatcher landslide.
Conclusion: Labour opinion poll lead a few months after massive Tory victory = totally irrelevant. Here endeth the lesson.
In fact, the idea that a poll such as this should have an relevance shows everything that is wrong in politics and the conduct of Government today. Historically a Government would see its primary role as to govern in the interests of the nation, implementing their manifesto as much as possible, and in the knowledge that some of their actions would be necessarily unpopular, particularly in the short term, but that they would not be judged on their record in the round until 4-5 years hence. They would expect that many of their actions that were unpopular in the short term would be judged differently with the perspective of time. Indeed, where necessary, they would deliberately seek to stack controllable unpopular (but necessary) measures in the first half of the Parliament.
Backbenchers would get seriously jittery for at least 2 years - nobody seriously thought polls in the first half of Parliament were a reason to get worried - too much could change, focus on the alternatives were lacking, and in extremes there was plenty of time to change the leadership and direction if necessary.
And even if they were interested, many Governments would have killed for polling like this!
Not following a big election win!
Margaret Thatcher's first landslide election victory (144 seat majority): 9 June 1983 First opinion poll thereafter putting Labour ahead: 13 February 1984
Result of 1987 General Election: second Thatcher landslide.
Conclusion: Labour opinion poll lead a few months after massive Tory victory = totally irrelevant. Here endeth the lesson.
On the other hand, Labour did not take the lead in the 1987 Parliament until almost two years after Thatcher's win. Similarly in the 1959 Parliament , Gaitskell's Labour party did not take the lead until Autumn 1961.
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
What Trump turf does he need to take him on on that he is currently not?
Is this code for saying Biden needs to dial up the racism?
No. But that's just what an idiot on his side with jelly for brains who's advising him to lose would say.
So let's look at the turf On the military Trump is turning a blind eye to Russian bounties on US soldiers. Biden is shining a spot light on this. On healthcare Trump is attempting to take way peoples healthcare through the courts. Biden is saying he'll defend people's healthcare plans. On the economy Trump is damaging rural Americans through nonsensical tradewars, Biden is saying he'll let Americans export again and make money. On law and order Trump has let America descend into chaos. Biden has said he will bring peace and calm.
What is the turf Biden should be fighting on? I am genuinely struggling here.
78k new daily cases in India, god knows how they manage to actually count that many, is it a record?
Sadly cases of the pox remain substantial. The ideas that it is in the past (Trump) and we are all safe now (Johnson) are childish mutterings of fools.
Biggest move amongst 2019 Tory Remain voters, 14% of whom are now voting Labour compared to only 3% of 2019 Tory Leave voters.
Labour has a big lead in the cities, 45% to 36% but the Tories still narrowly lead 41% to 39% in towns and the Tories lead more widely by 43% to 35% in rural areas.
Mail reports an near exponential rise in cases in FR in stark terms.
Yet the death graph is flat.
Look at what happened in the US state of Georgia. Deaths were falling as new cases rose astronomically.
Then deaths exploded upwards hitting over 60% excess mortality.
We know that the cases in France have started to climb steeply. Has this yet been reflected in a rise in hospital admissions? I've been trying to use trusty Google to establish this but haven't had much success so far.
NY times website has hospitalisation data.
Irritatingly, unless I am missing something, it has nice neat graphs of cases and deaths over time, but not of hospitalisations. The accompanying text suggests that ICU numbers have been rising again in August, but that's about all that one can say.
As I mentioned earlier, the warning signs have been there over the public reaction to the back-to-the-office campaign in the last few days. That may have been what finally shifted the tory lead over the edge, after the multiple disenchantments about algorithms and changes of course.
Levitt: "at some point we need to make curves like this for flu and then people will say, oh I didn't realise influenza was so terrible, and I didn't get upset about it, so therefore why am I getting so upset about something that is as lethal [the coronavirus]"
The 35% strategy was Labour's alleged strategy to target core voters in the 2015 election. There'll be loads of old stuff preserved online about it, this piece is an example:
36% say the BBC’s decision to have an instrumental performance of Land of Hope and Glory and Rule Britannia is bad, whereas 26% say it is a good decision.
How do they get such different answers to yesterday?
The comment on this issue has been entirely predictable and entirely depressing. It is based entirely on the basis that the justification given for the change is false. Ie. that a traditional performance would work very badly in an Albert Hall without audience (and further taking into account a desire to limit singing under Govt COVID guidelines. Even though it is incredibly plausible.
People have an interest in stating it has nothing to do with pure musical decisions. And so all comment on the subject is made on this basis.
Probably it’ll happen and those who are actually interested in the Proms as anything other than a political battleground will conclude that it was a good choice.
To answer all of those of you who would say “I can't believe you would vote for Trump." Well folks listen up! I'm not just voting for him. I'm voting for the second Amendment. I'm voting for the next supreme court justice. I'm voting for the electoral college, and the Republic we live in. I'm voting for the Police, and law and order. I'm voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country. I'm voting for the Flag that is always missing from the Democrat background. I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul the Democrats want to murder. I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream. I’m voting for good and against evil. I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country! What are you voting for?
Sad this was supported by an intelligent individual who has a gun safe with several hundred weapons covering the entire range of what’s legally available, when I asked why he said to defend Philadelphia when the blacks march out of New York to murder them in their beds.!
The RNC was masterful in its brazenness, attacking the Democrats from both left and right with unparalleled viciousness and addressing key voting blocs directly. The DNC by contrast was bland and anaemic, conveying only that Joe Biden is a nice guy, which everyone knew already.
I still don't think Trump will win this, but they're really giving it some welly.
True, but the bullshit is blindingly obvious, and no longer novel. He’ll retain the already persuaded, but he’s not going to win back those who’ve decided their vote four years ago was a mistake.
It is worth remembering that Biden doesn't need to persuade any Trump voters to switch, he merely needs to persuade those who voted for Obama and didn't vote in 2016 to support him.
This is his current strategy, and I'd say it's a complacent and very risky one.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
What Trump turf does he need to take him on on that he is currently not?
Is this code for saying Biden needs to dial up the racism?
No. But that's just what an idiot on his side with jelly for brains who's advising him to lose would say.
So let's look at the turf On the military Trump is turning a blind eye to Russian bounties on US soldiers. Biden is shining a spot light on this. On healthcare Trump is attempting to take way peoples healthcare through the courts. Biden is saying he'll defend people's healthcare plans. On the economy Trump is damaging rural Americans through nonsensical tradewars, Biden is saying he'll let Americans export again and make money. On law and order Trump has let America descend into chaos. Biden has said he will bring peace and calm.
What is the turf Biden should be fighting on? I am genuinely struggling here.
That post itself highlights your own bias and blindness.
He needs to come out strongly for law & order and say that whilst police brutality is unacceptable so are the actions of the protestors and he has zero tolerance for their burning and looting and the poor black and white people who suffer. However good the cause. Should he be President he will quash it without hesitation.
And please don't tell me he's already said this. He hasn't. Peace & calm is wet bollocks. Everyone wants that. People need to knows he's tough enough not to stand any nonsense, and not a thumb-sucking Leftie.
This isn't hard. Starmer manages to ride two horses at once.
Comments
I think he may have this entirely wrong - the trend will be about learning to control viral outbreaks. We’re not going to unlearn the things we have learned.
Unfortunately it seems, an assault of some nature by a cop on a black person occurs very regularly.
Basically, the daily YouGov seesaws wildly and you should be careful of reading too much into individual days.
Here's the crosstabs for the latest date if you're interested.
The common cold is a large mix of viruses, the majority rhinoviruses (numerous different ones), and about 15% coronaviruses.
And it’s not an offshoot, as it comes from bats, not other common cold coronaviruses.
Comparing the two things, and the cost/benefit of developing vaccines, is just silly.
When you hear sirens in the middle of the night, and helicopters, and streets are closed, then it's much closer and real. I really haven't noticed much in the last month, either on social media or TV. BLM came... and receded.
But now it may resurface.
One simple question. Will voters on balance have moved towards Trump since 2016? It’s difficult to find too many reasons why they should.
Parity!
We have reached parity!
Cross over hasn't yet happened.
Tonight's Opinium is Tories 40%, Labour 40% and LDs 6%
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/29/boris-johnson-faces-tory-wrath-as-party-slumps-in-shock-poll?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Although Starmer hitting 40 is a milestone.
Keir Starmer would be PM of a weak minority Government
I wasn't there, in person, to see and hear Edward Colston get pulled down in Bristol, the marches against Rhodes in Oxford and the unpleasant displays against the cenotaph and Churchill in Westminster.
It still left a very big political impact on me.
Right now, Biden is just talking to his base on this.
He's taking a huge risk.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1299783882624073728?s=20
So hung parliament and Starmer needs both the SNP to back him to have more MPs than the Tories and the LDs and Plaid and the Greens too for an overall majority
Then, I see one of my favourite teams abandon a sports game and walk out due to their desire to make a BLM protest.
I see Joe Biden tweeting about it, and entirely in supportive of it.
I was on the fence. Is this going to make me more likely to support Joe Biden, or is it going to really piss me off?
Then deaths exploded upwards hitting over 60% excess mortality.
It smacks a bit of Ed Miliband's 35%.
A real winner would lead his party, and go out there and take on Trump on his own turf.
I want Trump gone. But I don't want an old David Miliband in the White House either.
Right now Biden is making me feel 3rd party again.
Douche.
Because, if they can't answer that (and they think it's just a case of rolling the dice a second time) they'll lose.
https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1299785578549051399
Keir leads on approve again? 38 to 36
Is this code for saying Biden needs to dial up the racism?
As far as America is concerned, my view on the polls remains unchanged.
Biden is doing well in his strongholds (the latest Massachusetts poll has him leading Trump 68-30) and in Republican strongholds.
Where he is struggling is where the battle will be won or lost - in the marginal states. In those Biden's swing is 2-3% while elsewhere it's more like 4-6%.
My caution about US polls related to the crosstabs - who is being sampled in terms of numbers of Republicans, Democrats and Independents as well as the ethnic breakdown?
I'd look for roughly 37-38% Democrat, 32-34% Independent and 29-31% Republican and marked variation from that would make the poll suspect.
I don't have access to the Trafalgar/Rasmussen crosstabs so are they over-sampling Republican or Independents? Having seen who voted in 2016, I suspect the other pollsters have corrected any errors in their sampling methodologies but that doesn't mean they will get it right this time.
My other view is the very low number of Undecideds (3.6% on one poll). The American electorate is highly polarised with entrenched views of both candidates. That would suggest very little movement and I'd argue neither the Conventions nor the debates are going to make a lot of difference.
Backbenchers would get seriously jittery for at least 2 years - nobody seriously thought polls in the first half of Parliament were a reason to get worried - too much could change, focus on the alternatives were lacking, and in extremes there was plenty of time to change the leadership and direction if necessary.
And even if they were interested, many Governments would have killed for polling like this!
My pitch to Biden would be, do you want to fucking win or not?
If you do listen to people who are actually WWC voters in the swing states who went for Trump last time and DON'T listen to those who concluded he was a cunt many years ago.
NY times website has hospitalisation data.
What about those who've gone the other way?
This happens every election.
I'm laying Trump at present because the markets have it at about 55:44 and I think it's about 60:40 at worst and 65:35 at best.
But, 35% is 35%. It's not zero per cent. And odds and probabilities can change quickly.
How do they get such different answers to yesterday?
First opinion poll thereafter putting Labour ahead: 13 February 1984
Result of 1987 General Election: second Thatcher landslide.
Conclusion: Labour opinion poll lead a few months after massive Tory victory = totally irrelevant. Here endeth the lesson.
On the military Trump is turning a blind eye to Russian bounties on US soldiers. Biden is shining a spot light on this.
On healthcare Trump is attempting to take way peoples healthcare through the courts. Biden is saying he'll defend people's healthcare plans.
On the economy Trump is damaging rural Americans through nonsensical tradewars, Biden is saying he'll let Americans export again and make money.
On law and order Trump has let America descend into chaos. Biden has said he will bring peace and calm.
What is the turf Biden should be fighting on? I am genuinely struggling here.
Biggest move amongst 2019 Tory Remain voters, 14% of whom are now voting Labour compared to only 3% of 2019 Tory Leave voters.
Labour has a big lead in the cities, 45% to 36% but the Tories still narrowly lead 41% to 39% in towns and the Tories lead more widely by 43% to 35% in rural areas.
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/VI-2020-08-26-Data-Tables.xlsx
Absolute numbers similar to today albeit with twice the population
I think it’s our lack of familiarity with dear and disease that is causing the disquiet
Seems like Jon Curtice's analysis a few weeks ago (?) is looking pretty bang on at present
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-was-the-35-strategy-that-lost-labour-the-general-election-10240286.html
The Tories seem to have gone a bit quiet on Goodwin's latest Tweet
I'm prepared to give Harry's Pie & Mash a try on a future visit but I still think Zaikaa is excellent.
Hmmm
People have an interest in stating it has nothing to do with pure musical decisions. And so all comment on the subject is made on this basis.
Probably it’ll happen and those who are actually interested in the Proms as anything other than a political battleground will conclude that it was a good choice.
To answer all of those of you who would say “I can't believe you would vote for Trump." Well folks listen up! I'm not just voting for him. I'm voting for the second Amendment. I'm voting for the next supreme court justice. I'm voting for the electoral college, and the Republic we live in. I'm voting for the Police, and law and order. I'm voting for the military, and the veterans who fought for and died for this Country. I'm voting for the Flag that is always missing from the Democrat background. I'm voting for the right to speak my opinion and not be censored. I’m voting for secure borders. I’m voting for the right to praise my God without fear. I’m voting for every unborn soul the Democrats want to murder. I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream. I’m voting for good and against evil. I'm not just voting for one person, I'm voting for the future of my Country! What are you voting for?
Sad this was supported by an intelligent individual who has a gun safe with several hundred weapons covering the entire range of what’s legally available, when I asked why he said to defend Philadelphia when the blacks march out of New York to murder them in their beds.!
This is sort of interesting, people going from positive to neutral, negative looks fairly consistent.
He needs to come out strongly for law & order and say that whilst police brutality is unacceptable so are the actions of the protestors and he has zero tolerance for their burning and looting and the poor black and white people who suffer. However good the cause. Should he be President he will quash it without hesitation.
And please don't tell me he's already said this. He hasn't. Peace & calm is wet bollocks. Everyone wants that. People need to knows he's tough enough not to stand any nonsense, and not a thumb-sucking Leftie.
This isn't hard. Starmer manages to ride two horses at once.