Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
Many people blame Antifa for the riots.
Why? When Trumps Feds have been on camera using tear gas, batons and more to attack peaceful protesters and even members of the media (even international media) why would you blame Antifa?
And even if Antifa was to blame and POTUS was right to send the Feds in to deal with them ... Then why can't his Feds deal with the problem? He is in charge isn't he?
That Labour wanted to install Corbyn should totally rule them out of the playground ever again.
Labour's problem is that they are a 19th century party, led by 19th century politicians, and even in those terms they get the leftovers. Labour are awful, and awful in spades, but the fact that they manage to appear to be a reasonable opposition party tells us everything we need to know about the current capabilities of the Tory party.
And even if Antifa was to blame and POTUS was right to send the Feds in to deal with them ... Then why can't his Feds deal with the problem? He is in charge isn't he?
Because of the American federal system, under which law and order is mostly a state and local responsibility. Federal troops can only protect federal property, unless requested to intervene by state governors.
(The exceptions to that are if the Insurrection Act of 1807 is invoked, as the first Bush did in LA in 1992, or to enforce federal law, but Trump has not done either so far, and his Defense Secretary said he would only do so as a last resort).
For months now we've been subjected to contrived outrage from the Corbynites based on claims that there was a covert plan to undermine Labour's 2017 general election campaign in order to get rid of Corbyn, and so denied Labour enough seats to form a government.
The reality is now revealed that there was a plan only to undermine Corbyn's factional attempt to get rid of political opponents within the Labour Party by denying them funding to defend their vulnerable seats. The wisdom of that plan is confirmed by the the fact that with such covert funding Labour held on to many such seats only by the skin of their teeth in 2017 with their vulnerability further confirmed by their loss in 2019. Far from denying Corbyn the chance to form a government, the covert plan helped deny May a majority.
Heneghan did the right thing by putting the interests of the party first, in the face of attempts by Corbyn to put his faction's interests first.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
No it hasn't happened since the Feds have been there for months.
What has Trump done in these months that has made things better?
And what has the President of the United States of America done to deescalate matters?
The riots went on for ages before the Feds arrived and they are only defending federal property, the Democrat state governors won't let them do anything else.
Tim Wheeler actually addressed the protests while they were setting fire to buildings and that did nothing to de-escalate the situation.
Not to mention arrested rioters being released by the DA to continue where they left off.
There's no evidence that the rioters are interested in de-escalation at all, they seem determined to continue until Trump is gone, which is when I suspect they will magically disappear.
Ultimately Corbyn was hamstrung from the very beginning because he did not have sufficient support among his MPs and he never cared about gaining it. For a man who never delivered blind loyalty to a party leader he and his supporters were astoundingly arrogant in thinking his poor parliamentary politics was irrelevant.
All the rest is mere details, of claim and counterclaim, and even the most generous interpretation is that he was incapable or unwilling to overcome the challenges, external and internal, to his leadership.
Corbyn wanted a majority Labour government to push through a socialist agenda, he had zero interest in diluting that by doing deals with the LDs to stop Brexit by not putting up Labour candidates in their target seats
And by doing so, has zero possibility of implementing ANY of his policies. Great job.
Corbyn's followers pretend that giving up something to get something is the same as giving up everything.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
No it hasn't happened since the Feds have been there for months.
What has Trump done in these months that has made things better?
And what has the President of the United States of America done to deescalate matters?
The riots went on for ages before the Feds arrived and they are only defending federal property, the Democrat state governors won't let them do anything else.
Tim Wheeler actually addressed the protests while they were setting fire to buildings and that did nothing to de-escalate the situation.
Not to mention arrested rioters being released by the DA to continue where they left off.
There's no evidence that the rioters are interested in de-escalation at all, they seem determined to continue until Trump is gone, which is when I suspect they will magically disappear.
So you argument is that Trump is incapable of dealing with the protests but if Trump goes so will the protests?
Sounds about right. I agree with you there. Makes sense to vote Biden then doesn't it?
That Labour wanted to install Corbyn should totally rule them out of the playground ever again.
Labour's problem is that they are a 19th century party, led by 19th century politicians, and even in those terms they get the leftovers. Labour are awful, and awful in spades, but the fact that they manage to appear to be a reasonable opposition party tells us everything we need to know about the current capabilities of the Tory party.
Corbyn wanted a majority Labour government to push through a socialist agenda, he had zero interest in diluting that by doing deals with the LDs to stop Brexit by not putting up Labour candidates in their target seats
No he didn't. He wants "power without responsibility". His life has been opposition in perpetuity, even when his party were in power he opposed.
I don't think he wants power without responsibility. He wants a platform without responsibility.
Corbyn wanted a majority Labour government to push through a socialist agenda, he had zero interest in diluting that by doing deals with the LDs to stop Brexit by not putting up Labour candidates in their target seats
No he didn't. He wants "power without responsibility". His life has been opposition in perpetuity, even when his party were in power he opposed.
I don't think he wants power without responsibility. He wants a platform without responsibility.
On topic, part of me wonders whether the requirement for the purity of socialism is never having the power to enact it because the possession of that power would inevitably involve compromise and that would be anathema to the ideals of socialism (or indeed pure conservatism or pure liberalism for that matter).
It then becomes all about "the struggle" - the cause legitimises the struggle and the strategy/tactics. The impossible achievement of pure socialism means the inevitability of defeat and therefore the perpetual continuation of the struggle.
The illusion can only be sustained by the reality of the struggle - the fight goes on, it can never be won, indeed, it must never be won.
To win is to compromise and Blair (and presumably Wilson) compromised to win power - victory meant debasing the socialist ideal so for them to win meant they had "sold out" on that ideal. For the "pure", the struggle never ends.
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
We will pay for it but we will never see it get anywhere near Scotland.
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
Plus under Barnett HS2 is classed as English expenditure and the Scots get Barnett consequentials from it.
Which Malcolm 100% knows.
you are talking absolute crap philip. It is explicitly excluded and we have to pay for it. You boys are not too clever on Barnett are you. Go read up on it and show me your proof we do not pay and get Barnett consequentials. I do not expect to hear back from you.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
I thought the Wisconsin town had a republican mayor and police chief?
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
We will pay for it but we will never see it get anywhere near Scotland.
Trains from Edinburgh and Glasgow will have significantly greater speed and capacity heading south as a result.
Hence why the SNP support then scheme and want it extending beyond Carlisle so it can be linked up to a high speed line down from Carstairs.
You may not like the idea of investing in high speed rail but the SNP join all the major parties in England in supporting it.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
Which cities have rioted for several months?
After the shut down of the Seattle commune, and before the Wisconsin death, what rioting has there been?
In Los Angeles, there were two or three days of protests under George Floyd, and then it rather petered out. I don't think there's been anything at all after the latest police killing.
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
Plus under Barnett HS2 is classed as English expenditure and the Scots get Barnett consequentials from it.
Which Malcolm 100% knows.
you are talking absolute crap philip. It is explicitly excluded and we have to pay for it. You boys are not too clever on Barnett are you. Go read up on it and show me your proof we do not pay and get Barnett consequentials. I do not expect to hear back from you.
But HM Treasury categorised HS2 as a ‘national’ project, with the result that Barnett consequentials are payable to Scotland and Northern Ireland but not to Wales
On topic, part of me wonders whether the requirement for the purity of socialism is never having the power to enact it because the possession of that power would inevitably involve compromise and that would be anathema to the ideals of socialism (or indeed pure conservatism or pure liberalism for that matter).
It then becomes all about "the struggle" - the cause legitimises the struggle and the strategy/tactics. The impossible achievement of pure socialism means the inevitability of defeat and therefore the perpetual continuation of the struggle.
The illusion can only be sustained by the reality of the struggle - the fight goes on, it can never be won, indeed, it must never be won.
To win is to compromise and Blair (and presumably Wilson) compromised to win power - victory meant debasing the socialist ideal so for them to win meant they had "sold out" on that ideal. For the "pure", the struggle never ends.
That is exactly right. Purity is for the birds (or the Soviets). Jeremy Corbyn is the best recruiting sergeant the Conservative Party have, and best of all for them he comes free.
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
No it hasn't happened since the Feds have been there for months.
What has Trump done in these months that has made things better?
And what has the President of the United States of America done to deescalate matters?
Law & order is a matter for the states not the feds
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
Which cities have rioted for several months?
After the shut down of the Seattle commune, and before the Wisconsin death, what rioting has there been?
In Los Angeles, there were two or three days of protests under George Floyd, and then it rather petered out. I don't think there's been anything at all after the latest police killing.
A search of Google News shows that between then and 17 June, there were fairly regular protests in the US. After 17 June, mentions of riots become very much more sporadic, even in Minneapolis St Paul, and after 3 July, there's basically nothing.
There was then seven weeks of nothing, before the Kenosha killing and subsequent riots.
These riots have been much more localised and much smaller than the previous ones. The Kenosha killing one led to "hundreds" marching in Downtown LA a week ago, but that was it.
In New York, there's been nothing since a small demonstration a week ago. In San Francisco, nothing. In Baltimore and DC, Houston and Dallas, Phoenix and Tucson nothing.
Maybe I'm watching a different Fox News to you, but I'm not even seeing that much on TV. (Now, I see Fox 11, so it'll be localised content.) But other than Hannity ranting, there's nothing in the hard news stories about it.
See my post sometime ago on this. It is weird. I was asking here if anyone knew anything of the 2 organisations involved and mentioned in the Trump tweets (I have now forgotten the names) and why is the Express involved in the poll? Trump has tweeted about it (several times), but nobody else is mentioning it.
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
We will pay for it but we will never see it get anywhere near Scotland.
Trains from Edinburgh and Glasgow will have significantly greater speed and capacity heading south as a result.
Hence why the SNP support then scheme and want it extending beyond Carlisle so it can be linked up to a high speed line down from Carstairs.
You may not like the idea of investing in high speed rail but the SNP join all the major parties in England in supporting it.
Scotland has had a wildly over-generous settlement for years in financial terms. Scotland will continue to support measures which maintain and expand that generosity.
unionists get ever more desperate , now quibbling about less than Boris's entertainment bill. what about 80B+ on a few miles of railtrack, 20B+ for a cross london tunnel , 200B+ on willy waving toys. How low can you stoop.
Last I heard SNP were in favour of HS2, in fact isn't it the policy to have HS2 extended up into Scotland rather than having it cancelled?
They want more spending on high speed rail, not less.
Plus under Barnett HS2 is classed as English expenditure and the Scots get Barnett consequentials from it.
Which Malcolm 100% knows.
you are talking absolute crap philip. It is explicitly excluded and we have to pay for it. You boys are not too clever on Barnett are you. Go read up on it and show me your proof we do not pay and get Barnett consequentials. I do not expect to hear back from you.
I have given you many links down the years which you always ignore.
Here's one more for the list to go with the one Carlotta gave.
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
The riots are on the watch of Democrat mayors and governors, who have done nothing to stop them for three months.
Trump is President and has aggravated the violence by escalating it by sending in Federal Thugs to deal with a protest against Police violence. He has poured fuel on the flames rather than seek de-escalation.
How are the Mayors meant to resolve the fact that Federal Forces are abusing their authority and escalating the violence? They can't stop that.
Do you mean the federal forces in Portland, who were defending the federal courthouse after the Antifa mob set it on fire several nights running?
Yeah I don't get it. I'm copping a lot of abuse here for suggesting that people rioting and looting should be stopped rather than allowed to continue for months unopposed. I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.
Maybe Trump Derangement Syndrome really is a thing.
I am going to regret this BUT:
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be stopped (you ought to try reading what people post and not make up your own interpretation of it).
They should however not be stopped by a bunch of vigilantes as you were proposing on the last thread.
And it would help if the president actually made some conciliatory remarks rather than egging on the vigilantes in a tweet.
My proposal was for the police and/or government to deal with the rioters which is what I stated several times.
Having so far refused to do that then ordinary people were left with a choice of watching their cities burning to the ground or doing something about it themselves.
And how exactly do you propose to deal with the protests given that it is Police violence that started them and Police violence from Federal Forces that Trump sent in have only served to escalate the violence?
What is your solution? More violence from the Police? Or attempt de-escalation?
These riots went on for months before Trump sent in the Feds, de-escalation has been tried by the local Democrat run cities and completely failed.
What is your solution? Just leave them to it?
That's not true.
How about trying de-escalation tactics? How about a President who appeals for calm from all sides rather than stoking violence? How about an attempt to investigate and reform the concerns about violence?
Trump has used his federal powers and made matters worse. Time for someone else to have a go.
What isn't true?
The riots have gone on for several months and local Democrat run cities have tried endless appeasement, which has failed. Are you saying these things haven't happened?
It's time to agree to disagree I think, we can't even agree on basic things that have clearly happened.
Has Trump sending in the Feds made things worse? Here I'm open to be persuaded, but of course at first there will be clashes until the rioters are arrested and dispersed.
No it hasn't happened since the Feds have been there for months.
What has Trump done in these months that has made things better?
And what has the President of the United States of America done to deescalate matters?
Law & order is a matter for the states not the feds
Yes but Trump has sent the Feds to Portland anyway.
On topic, part of me wonders whether the requirement for the purity of socialism is never having the power to enact it because the possession of that power would inevitably involve compromise and that would be anathema to the ideals of socialism (or indeed pure conservatism or pure liberalism for that matter).
It then becomes all about "the struggle" - the cause legitimises the struggle and the strategy/tactics. The impossible achievement of pure socialism means the inevitability of defeat and therefore the perpetual continuation of the struggle.
The illusion can only be sustained by the reality of the struggle - the fight goes on, it can never be won, indeed, it must never be won.
To win is to compromise and Blair (and presumably Wilson) compromised to win power - victory meant debasing the socialist ideal so for them to win meant they had "sold out" on that ideal. For the "pure", the struggle never ends.
I quite agree, and you're right that exactly the same is true of the opposite side of British politics? Many Tories, including some MPs and large numbers of commentators on sites such as Conservative Home and Guido, are constantly bewailing the lack of purity of modern conservatism, even the current government. They will never be satisfied (unless everything is privatised, taxes are miniscule, Rule Brittania is sung every day and so on). In reality, however, even Thatcher compromised much of the time. The shape of Brexit in the future sees this battle for purity still playing out on the right. I'd expect the right to be tearing itself apart again before the end of this parliament, while the left will coalesce more (the purists will have left in disgust at Starmer).
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
The Express poll was weighted for equal Dem/GOP party identification.
On topic, part of me wonders whether the requirement for the purity of socialism is never having the power to enact it because the possession of that power would inevitably involve compromise and that would be anathema to the ideals of socialism (or indeed pure conservatism or pure liberalism for that matter).
It then becomes all about "the struggle" - the cause legitimises the struggle and the strategy/tactics. The impossible achievement of pure socialism means the inevitability of defeat and therefore the perpetual continuation of the struggle.
The illusion can only be sustained by the reality of the struggle - the fight goes on, it can never be won, indeed, it must never be won.
To win is to compromise and Blair (and presumably Wilson) compromised to win power - victory meant debasing the socialist ideal so for them to win meant they had "sold out" on that ideal. For the "pure", the struggle never ends.
Corbyn and the NEC had the right to decide where the party put resources.
The story seems to me to be that Heneghan has just admitted that he ignored their instructions, but (having now been found out) is claiming he did so for the best reasons.
The allegation that it was done to hurt moderate MPs isn't particularly plausible, since Corbyn could have gone for deselection before (or after) the election.
In any case, 2017 is ancient history. What matters now is Starmer needs to win. And this running dispute isn't helpful.
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Why isn't Fox News showing different results, then?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
Let's see some crosstabs, let's see some sampling. Trump leading 47-43 in New Hampshire - last poll I saw had Biden up 51-43.
Mr Basham is an interesting cove - links to the Cato and Fraser Institutes so probably not a "leftie" (to use the vernacular).
You only have to look at the titles of opinion pieces on RCP to see objective analysis is about as popular in the US now as a Libertarian Candidate for POTUS.
Trump is not short of people prepared to praise him to the skies - doesn't mean he is going to win and we forget perhaps the election is still two months away.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
Remarkably the reverse-premium for Trump is back and he is once again shorter than his party; the premium for Biden has increased.
Biden 1.97 Dem 1.91
Trump 2.06 Rep 2.08
Why is Trump at such short odds with Biden absolutely miles ahead in the polls?
There’s a sense afoot that Trump has the Mo. It will either be born out by the next batch of polls showing the Biden lead narrowing sharply or if not the Trump price will collapse. We await agog.
But where has this sense come from? It doesn't seem to be reflected in any of the polls to date as far as I can see.
Couple of polls today showing a smaller lead but it's mainly ethereal right now. There does seem to be a popular view that disorder on the streets pushes people towards Trump. But I think that might be projecting - we'll see.
Maybe it is punters thinking that they themselves would be put off voting for the Democrats because of the riots.
Are there any recent polls of the type "who do you think will win?" rather than "who would you vote for?" ?
Perhaps they would show a different trend.
When the riots are happening on Trumps watch and the riots are started by, provoked by and encouraged by white supremacist Trump supporters then why would you vote Trump because you're concerned about them?
Many people blame Antifa for the riots.
Why? When Trumps Feds have been on camera using tear gas, batons and more to attack peaceful protesters and even members of the media (even international media) why would you blame Antifa?
And even if Antifa was to blame and POTUS was right to send the Feds in to deal with them ... Then why can't his Feds deal with the problem? He is in charge isn't he?
Then why did the governor of Oregon have the power to demand he withdrew the feds?
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Why isn't Fox News showing different results, then?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
Fair enough but I am not claiming the polls are wrong. I am just advancing an explanation for why Trump's betting is very much outperforming his polling.
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Why isn't Fox News showing different results, then?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
I'd love to see the crosstabs from Rasmussen, Trafalgar and the Democracy Institute. I've commented a lot on the crosstabs from other pollsters and you are absolutely right in suspecting pollsters have updated their sampling and methodology following 2016 to more accurately reflect what happened then.
The problem is no two elections are the same and assuming the 2016 voting pattern will replicate is equally foolish. The number that strikes me is the very low Undecided figure - 7-8% compared with 16-18% at this stage four years ago.
The polls all suggest a polarised electorate with entrenched views - I don't see how that radically changes before November.
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
I'd love to see the crosstabs from Rasmussen, Trafalgar and the Democracy Institute. I've commented a lot on the crosstabs from other pollsters and you are absolutely right in suspecting pollsters have updated their sampling and methodology following 2016 to more accurately reflect what happened then.
The problem is no two elections are the same and assuming the 2016 voting pattern will replicate is equally foolish. The number that strikes me is the very low Undecided figure - 7-8% compared with 16-18% at this stage four years ago.
The polls all suggest a polarised electorate with entrenched views - I don't see how that radically changes before November.
That zogby poll I just posted suggested significant support for Trump from Blacks and Hispanics.
If its true, Biden is dead in the water. But it probably isn't.
It didn't come off. (My bet was No SC at 3.2, having watched liberal use of the VSC in the support races). Thankfully Giovanazzi and Russell both walked away from a nasty crash.
Major expelled everyone who didn't vote for Maastricht. How is that any different at all to Boris expelling those who didn't vote for his deal in the last Parliament?
Trump fanbois thinking violence on Trump's watch and with Trump's Feds involved is a reason to vote for Trump should ask themselves 2 basic questions.
Can Trump stop the violence?
Why hasn't he yet?
Either he doesn't want to end it or he can't. Neither is impressive.
It's not within his jurisdiction. Policing is devolved to cities and states, feds are only allowed to defend federal property and on request of the mayors and governors.
Trump's line all along has been that National Guard were standing by to assist, they just needed to ask for help. They hadn't asked because they were supportive of the political aims of those rioting and looting.
It's like blaming Boris Johnson for failing to contain riots in Glasgow.
Grayling's subsequent behaviour has demonstrated the wisdom of the committee.
Quite.
I’ve only met Grayling once and to say I was unimpressed would be the understatement of the century. I have no doubt that Lewis will be better (but probably not as good as he thinks he will be). That doesn’t mean that he could behave the way he did without consequences
The national poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. The national party identification turnout model is: Democrats = 37 percent; Republicans = 35 percent; and Independents = 28 percent.
Gallup latest poll has party identification Dem: 31 GoP: 26 Ind: 41
Okay - the approval numbers are on Page 279. White voters approve of Trump 51-48 (+3). Black voters split 22-73 (-51), Hispanic voters split 33-62 (-29).
In terms of voting intention, Whites vote 48-44 for Trump, Black voters are 78-12 for Biden, Hispanic voters 57-27 for Biden.
The Zogby numbers for White and Hispanic voters are close but that doesn't mean those who "approve" of Trump are minded to vote for him.
To conclude from these approval numbers that Trump is "home and dry" is absurd.
I must say that the imminent american election, with all the bitterness and dodgy dealing, suddenly felt like the wrong time for me to have read a trilogy set during the fall of the Roman Republic. Far too tempting to see signs of terminal decline in institutions as a result.
Realistically its too late for an investigation to make much difference. Neither side will accept its findings if it goes against them. If he is compromised by the Russians, the Russians have what they want already. If he isnt compromised by them, they still benefit massively from the loss of confidence and division in the West. None of this can get fixed by an investigation, it can only be fixed by the voters.
I don't think Putin has kompromat on Trump. I think Trump's servility to him stems from awe at being in the presence of a man who is everything that he wants to be.
The national poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. The national party identification turnout model is: Democrats = 37 percent; Republicans = 35 percent; and Independents = 28 percent.
Gallup latest poll has party identification Dem: 31 GoP: 26 Ind: 41
That undersamples both Dems (by about 8 points) and Republicans (by 2-3) and adds them to Independents.
The national poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. The national party identification turnout model is: Democrats = 37 percent; Republicans = 35 percent; and Independents = 28 percent.
Gallup latest poll has party identification Dem: 31 GoP: 26 Ind: 41
The truth is probably somewhere between the two. The Economist/YouGov split is 37.5% Dem, 35.4% Ind and 27.1% Rep.
Trump's odds on betfair is essentially the human nature versus objectivity bet, isn;t it?
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Why isn't Fox News showing different results, then?
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
There is a considerable scatter. But this is interesting -
Look at the clustering in recent days that hasn't fed into the trend, yet.
That clustering won't feed into the trend, because all those polls were from the same pollster - USC Dornsife - and only the latest one will count for the purpose of the poll of polls.
Comments
And even if Antifa was to blame and POTUS was right to send the Feds in to deal with them ... Then why can't his Feds deal with the problem? He is in charge isn't he?
Labour's problem is that they are a 19th century party, led by 19th century politicians, and even in those terms they get the leftovers. Labour are awful, and awful in spades, but the fact that they manage to appear to be a reasonable opposition party tells us everything we need to know about the current capabilities of the Tory party.
https://www.cityam.com/eu-prepared-to-soften-state-aid-demand-to-reach-brexit-deal/
(The exceptions to that are if the Insurrection Act of 1807 is invoked, as the first Bush did in LA in 1992, or to enforce federal law, but Trump has not done either so far, and his Defense Secretary said he would only do so as a last resort).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/aug/27/labour-official-denies-grand-plan-sabotage-corbyn-2017-election-bid-patrick-heneghan
What it boils down to is this.
For months now we've been subjected to contrived outrage from the Corbynites based on claims that there was a covert plan to undermine Labour's 2017 general election campaign in order to get rid of Corbyn, and so denied Labour enough seats to form a government.
The reality is now revealed that there was a plan only to undermine Corbyn's factional attempt to get rid of political opponents within the Labour Party by denying them funding to defend their vulnerable seats. The wisdom of that plan is confirmed by the the fact that with such covert funding Labour held on to many such seats only by the skin of their teeth in 2017 with their vulnerability further confirmed by their loss in 2019. Far from denying Corbyn the chance to form a government, the covert plan helped deny May a majority.
Heneghan did the right thing by putting the interests of the party first, in the face of attempts by Corbyn to put his faction's interests first.
Tim Wheeler actually addressed the protests while they were setting fire to buildings and that did nothing to de-escalate the situation.
Not to mention arrested rioters being released by the DA to continue where they left off.
There's no evidence that the rioters are interested in de-escalation at all, they seem determined to continue until Trump is gone, which is when I suspect they will magically disappear.
All the rest is mere details, of claim and counterclaim, and even the most generous interpretation is that he was incapable or unwilling to overcome the challenges, external and internal, to his leadership.
Sounds about right. I agree with you there. Makes sense to vote Biden then doesn't it?
On topic, part of me wonders whether the requirement for the purity of socialism is never having the power to enact it because the possession of that power would inevitably involve compromise and that would be anathema to the ideals of socialism (or indeed pure conservatism or pure liberalism for that matter).
It then becomes all about "the struggle" - the cause legitimises the struggle and the strategy/tactics. The impossible achievement of pure socialism means the inevitability of defeat and therefore the perpetual continuation of the struggle.
The illusion can only be sustained by the reality of the struggle - the fight goes on, it can never be won, indeed, it must never be won.
To win is to compromise and Blair (and presumably Wilson) compromised to win power - victory meant debasing the socialist ideal so for them to win meant they had "sold out" on that ideal. For the "pure", the struggle never ends.
He conspired with the opposition and, at best, knowingly allowed the chief whip to believe something which wasn’t true.
All with the intention of getting himself a plum job he had coveted rather than the government’s nominee.
You’re entitled to believe that his actions were justified. But the Tory party response was not petulant - it was proportionate and necessary.
The committee alone is supposed to elect its own chairman.
This is the sort of shitty behaviour Julian Lewis is trying to stop and you're defending.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/22/julian-lewis-warns-dominic-cummings-not-to-politicise-isc-inquiries
You need to good hard look at yourself Charles.
Plus of course last year Parliament was sabotaging negotiations and preventing us from walking away. That problem doesn't exist anymore.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/uk-politics/2449171/scottish-dynamo-douglas-ross-calls-for-major-investment-to-rival-northern-powerhouse/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
A low bar, admittedly, but for that BoZo expelled him.
Petulant in the extreme.
Hence why the SNP support then scheme and want it extending beyond Carlisle so it can be linked up to a high speed line down from Carstairs.
You may not like the idea of investing in high speed rail but the SNP join all the major parties in England in supporting it.
After the shut down of the Seattle commune, and before the Wisconsin death, what rioting has there been?
In Los Angeles, there were two or three days of protests under George Floyd, and then it rather petered out. I don't think there's been anything at all after the latest police killing.
But HM Treasury categorised HS2 as a ‘national’ project, with the result that Barnett consequentials are payable to Scotland and Northern Ireland but not to Wales
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/1751/175107.htm
The bet is that polling organisations won't serve up favourable polls for Trump to paymasters for whom he is a total and complete anathema. a figure of visceral hatred.
Just look at their coverage for ten minutes, CNN, CNBC etc.
They not ready for those polls. They just do not compute.
Fox news, of course, being the major exception, I fully accept.
Meanwhile the Daily Express (!) has a poll showing Trump cruising it. Not even I believe that one.
Trump in the lead?
Numpty.
Re rioting in the US.
Goerge Floyd was killed on 25 May.
A search of Google News shows that between then and 17 June, there were fairly regular protests in the US. After 17 June, mentions of riots become very much more sporadic, even in Minneapolis St Paul, and after 3 July, there's basically nothing.
There was then seven weeks of nothing, before the Kenosha killing and subsequent riots.
These riots have been much more localised and much smaller than the previous ones. The Kenosha killing one led to "hundreds" marching in Downtown LA a week ago, but that was it.
In New York, there's been nothing since a small demonstration a week ago. In San Francisco, nothing. In Baltimore and DC, Houston and Dallas, Phoenix and Tucson nothing.
Maybe I'm watching a different Fox News to you, but I'm not even seeing that much on TV. (Now, I see Fox 11, so it'll be localised content.) But other than Hannity ranting, there's nothing in the hard news stories about it.
Here's one more for the list to go with the one Carlotta gave.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2019-10-15.742.h&s=hs2
HS2 is fully funded by DFT and Scotland gets full Barnett consequentials as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
The story seems to me to be that Heneghan has just admitted that he ignored their instructions, but (having now been found out) is claiming he did so for the best reasons.
The allegation that it was done to hurt moderate MPs isn't particularly plausible, since Corbyn could have gone for deselection before (or after) the election.
In any case, 2017 is ancient history. What matters now is Starmer needs to win. And this running dispute isn't helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
Democracy Institute/Sunday Express[d] Aug 26-28 1,500 (LV) ± 2.5% 48% 45%
Democracy Institute/Sunday Express[d] Jul 29–31 1,500 (LV) ± 2.5% 48% 46%
Democracy Institute/Sunday Express[d] Jul 1–3 1,500 (LV) ± 2.5% 47% 47% (Tie)
And even One America News, when it commissioned a poll, ended up pulling it, because it didn't show the numbers expected.
There is a plethora of press from all sides of the political spectrum in the US. There have also been polls in the US from people like Morning Consult, using consistent methodology, for measuring satisfaction. And they all also show very similar results.
But you have to assume that (a) even the polls from people like Siena College are biased, despite the lack of financial incentive (b) polls commissioned by right leaning pollsters are also biased against Trump, and (c) there's no one who's thinking "if I get this right and everyone else gets it wrong, I'll make an absolute fortune selling my services to hedge funds next time around."
I'm also struggling to see - given crosstabs are public from most pollsters (although not some, like Trafalgar) - how they would execute this. Unless you think they are not just choosing an unrepresentative demographic, but actually throwing responses away they don't like.
Occam's razor applies here. Whatever requires the fewer assumptions (and the least collusion) is more likely to be correct?
(Indeed, I'm going to put my cards on the table. I think the pollsters were burnt in 2016, and don't want to get it wrong overstating the Democrats in 2020. So even though Registered Republicans are now just 28% of the electorate, down from 40% at the time of Bush Sr, I challenge you to find any poll weighting that has them down in the 20s. Now, I know their reasoning, and it makes sense, - that Republicans are much more enthused. But if I were going to bet on a polling error, I'd bet on it being the other way.)
Mr Basham is an interesting cove - links to the Cato and Fraser Institutes so probably not a "leftie" (to use the vernacular).
You only have to look at the titles of opinion pieces on RCP to see objective analysis is about as popular in the US now as a Libertarian Candidate for POTUS.
Trump is not short of people prepared to praise him to the skies - doesn't mean he is going to win and we forget perhaps the election is still two months away.
By specimen date
By specimen date
By specimen date
There is a considerable scatter. But this is interesting -
Look at the clustering in recent days that hasn't fed into the trend, yet.
Jeez look at this poll from Zogby. Trump is home and dry if this is in any way correct.
its funny though. Even I don;t like posting good polls for Trump.
The problem is no two elections are the same and assuming the 2016 voting pattern will replicate is equally foolish. The number that strikes me is the very low Undecided figure - 7-8% compared with 16-18% at this stage four years ago.
The polls all suggest a polarised electorate with entrenched views - I don't see how that radically changes before November.
If the party leadership determine they want you to vote one way and you vote another you pay the price
If its true, Biden is dead in the water. But it probably isn't.
(My bet was No SC at 3.2, having watched liberal use of the VSC in the support races).
Thankfully Giovanazzi and Russell both walked away from a nasty crash.
You are saying he should have got what he wanted with no consequences. However very entitled of you
Trump's line all along has been that National Guard were standing by to assist, they just needed to ask for help. They hadn't asked because they were supportive of the political aims of those rioting and looting.
It's like blaming Boris Johnson for failing to contain riots in Glasgow.
The national poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval. The national party identification turnout model is: Democrats = 37 percent; Republicans = 35 percent; and Independents = 28 percent.
Gallup latest poll has party identification
Dem: 31
GoP: 26
Ind: 41
Okay - the approval numbers are on Page 279. White voters approve of Trump 51-48 (+3). Black voters split 22-73 (-51), Hispanic voters split 33-62 (-29).
In terms of voting intention, Whites vote 48-44 for Trump, Black voters are 78-12 for Biden, Hispanic voters 57-27 for Biden.
The Zogby numbers for White and Hispanic voters are close but that doesn't mean those who "approve" of Trump are minded to vote for him.
To conclude from these approval numbers that Trump is "home and dry" is absurd.
Which is curious.
In that poll Independents were 43-39 for Biden.