Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Biden moves to evens on Betfair new Ipsos WH2020 poll has h

SystemSystem Posts: 11,020
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Biden moves to evens on Betfair new Ipsos WH2020 poll has him leading Trump by 15% on favourability

There’s a new ABC News/Ipsos WH2020 poll out with its first leadership ratings since the end of the conventions. As can be seen above Biden has moved 46% favourable in the latest poll which is up 6% over three weeks ago. He’s also seen his unfavourable numbers decline.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,891
    First
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    I struggle with the White House betting.

    While I think Trump is on more favourable electoral territory, with the focus on law & order, it doesn't really seem - at any point - to have made any significant difference to Biden's polling.

    Indeed, look at the 538 or RCP averages (and while I suspect Nate Silver of Democratic sympathies, RCP is slightly right of centre). They both show Biden continuing to be very close to his high watermark polling-wise. (It's hard to have much of a bounce when you're already at 50 percent in the polling, and your peak is 51% back in May.)

    I do see Republicans as more motivated. I also think that a lot of the undecideds will break for Trump. But unless that Biden share moves down from 50%, then Trump is going to really find this very difficult.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    I’ve just placed a bet at evens
    There is a God, He loves you, and His love for you is manifested in the form of His greatest gift to you, this market
  • Options

    Seems a good opportunity to top up on Biden at favourable odds.

    Have done so.

    A Trump win would hit PBers hard.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    edited August 2020
    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
  • Options
    Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.

    Cold. Blooded. Murder.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.

    Cold. Blooded. Murder.

    If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    Portland will soon find out precisely the effects of failing to do any policing for 90+ days.

    Cold. Blooded. Murder.

    If the Portland police actually arrested the Nazi's who came to town every weekend rather than colaborating with them the world would be a better place.
    or they could do their job.

  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,081

    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
    Pure anti Corbyn prejudice.
  • Options
    We should go and burn down a bunch of businesses. That will show them.

    Police will do nothing.

  • Options
    BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    edited August 2020
    LOOK! A NAZI!

    as a regular joe walks past them not spouting the catchphrase du jour.

    SHOOT HIM!

    and then someone did.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    rcs1000 said:


    While I think Trump is on more favourable electoral territory, with the focus on law & order, it doesn't really seem - at any point - to have made any significant difference to Biden's polling.

    Is this favourable territory? I mean, the law and order card is definitely a great card, but generally you when you play it you're not supposed to be associated with one of the groups creating the disorder, especially when many of them are literally fascists.

    The low points of Trump's approval polling to date have been associated with playing precisely the cards he's now playing: After Charlottesville, and after he tear-gassed BLM protestors for a photo op. Leave aside the fact that he won in 2016 and therefore the justified suspicion that he may be one step ahead of us, what's the *objective* evidence that Americans in swing states want their president to be representing one side in an unasked-for civil war?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,081
    Fishing, so symbolic you don't even need to catch fish.

    https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1300154010750660612?s=20
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    edited August 2020

    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
    I don't know, but if he's an egregious offender and the level is within the range allowed by law then what does it matter? If his challenge reveals he was unfairly punished then I will defend him, but the implication of your statement seems to be that a punishment allowed by law might be unfair simply because he is relatively well known. Given he is a well known fantasist I'm prepared to wait for more than his word before assuming he is correct. The boy who cried wolf was right about something in the end, but could hardly blame people for doubting his veracity.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    edited August 2020
    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744

    Fishing, so symbolic you don't even need to catch fish.

    https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1300154010750660612?s=20

    If you're going to fake a stunt you could at least go all out, and show yourself spearing an orca or something.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    Totted up my WH bets - basically 1100 at even money on Biden right now.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
    I don't know, but if he's an egregious offender and the level is within the range allowed by law then what does it matter? If his challenge reveals he was unfairly punished then I will defend him, but the implication of your statement seems to be that a punishment allowed by law might be unfair simply because he is relatively well known. Given he is a well known fantasist I'm prepared to wait for more than his word before assuming he is correct. The boy who cried wolf was right about something in the end, but could hardly blame people for doubting his veracity.
    It doesn't look good if it seems some people are being treated differently to others.

    And the general impression the media are giving is that there aren't too many big fines being imposed.

    But you make a fair point that we need independent confirmation as to what has happened.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    The only UK organisations which have enhanced their reputations are the supermarkets and, much to my surprise, the Treasury.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,006
    It's not looking well for Trump. The range of good outcomes for him seems less likely, and smaller, than the range of good outcomes for Biden. It just seems like several things need to go Trump's way. So maybe evens is the time to bet.
  • Options
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/29/trains-row-threatens-derail-office-return-plan

    Some of the replacement agreements are believed to guarantee an operating profit margin of as little as 0.5pc. While this could be appetising for the likes of South Western, which has sustained significant losses, it would be less appealing to others by pushing them into the red once other overheads are accounted for.

    If the state has to guarantee a profit for private operators, perhaps it is time to accept the private companies are incapable of running the railways and so instead we should cut them out altogether and run things ourselves
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    Almost as if a highly transmissable pandemic unlike any that has hit Europe before in living memory swept through high population density western Europe.

    Germany are much lower population density and got off lightly compared to the rest of western Europe but they are the exception not the rule.

    But more importantly - its not a f***ing sport with a f***ing league table.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,006

    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    Almost as if a highly transmissable pandemic unlike any that has hit Europe before in living memory swept through high population density western Europe.

    Germany are much lower population density and got off lightly compared to the rest of western Europe but they are the exception not the rule.

    But more importantly - its not a f***ing sport with a f***ing league table.
    It's a highly infectious virus, not a video game. There is also some evidence that it became more infectious in Europe, in which case there is no real peer group to compare to.
  • Options
    Interesting to see a lead by OGH on favourable ratings rather than net favourables - when I compared favourables rather than net favourables in domestic polls recently some including OGH seemed to think that was an odd thing to do, prior to isam quoting an OGH article explaining why favourables rather than net favourables are best. So interesting now to see favourables being favoured as the metric again.

    And it is indeed both noteworthy and reassuring that Biden has such a massive lead on favourables and not just net favourables. One thing Trump backers claim is that he is loved by his supporters but that doesn't seem the case here at all. A lot of traditional Republicans feel no love whatsoever for Trump.

    I really think that Trump is Britain's Jeremy Corbyn and that like Corbyn people are overrating his chances this time, because he out performed the polls last time.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987

    LOOK! A NAZI!

    as a regular joe walks past them not spouting the catchphrase du jour.

    SHOOT HIM!

    and then someone did.

    Is that true? My understanding is that there was a pro-Trump rally to which attendees were encouraged to come armed.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    If they're politically homeless, them why don't they fuck off and join the Tories?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    That's what private Slack channels are for.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    The only UK organisations which have enhanced their reputations are the supermarkets and, much to my surprise, the Treasury.
    Much to everyone's surprise.

    If you'd asked people a year ago I would which would have seemed more believable: a deadly pandemic sweeps the world forcing people to be locked inside their homes . . . or that up and down the country people would be praising and grateful for the Treasury.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,612
    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    You just exchange Skype messages with your trusted colleague during the meeting.

    That's what we do, anyway.
  • Options
    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited August 2020
    This isn't complicated, voters don't like chaos and when they get things they don't like they change their president.

    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1300177759814250496
  • Options
    FPT

    The market might soon be deciding that if people are working from home they can be working from home in lower cost areas and lower cost countries.
    Err Richard hasn't the market been deciding that for decades?
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,081

    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    The only UK organisations which have enhanced their reputations are the supermarkets and, much to my surprise, the Treasury.
    Much to everyone's surprise.

    If you'd asked people a year ago I would which would have seemed more believable: a deadly pandemic sweeps the world forcing people to be locked inside their homes . . . or that up and down the country people would be praising and grateful for the Treasury.
    Praising and grateful is maybe stretching it. Mildly positive feeling that they're not complete fcukups like the rest of government?
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    We've clearly been among the worst hit in the world, but the data included in the BBC's reporting say's we're 4th worst deaths per capita rate in the world (excluding micro nations), with Italy, Spain, Sweden and us being pretty comparable in terms of European nations with really bad death rates.

    That doesn't undermine that our numbers show just how badly we've been affected, but of the truly large Western European nations only Germany has done well, France a bit better, and Spain and Italy about the same, and without Boris Johnson as a factor. As a continent we look to have done collectively badly despite very different systems and governments.
    The only UK organisations which have enhanced their reputations are the supermarkets and, much to my surprise, the Treasury.
    Much to everyone's surprise.

    If you'd asked people a year ago I would which would have seemed more believable: a deadly pandemic sweeps the world forcing people to be locked inside their homes . . . or that up and down the country people would be praising and grateful for the Treasury.
    Praising and grateful is maybe stretching it. Mildly positive feeling that they're not complete fcukups like the rest of government?
    OK let me rephrase it - what odds would you have got 12 months ago that the Treasury would be the most popular department of a Tory government?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Wisconsin highlights this perfectly. What polls there were (about two per month) usually had Hillary ahead by 4 or 5. But a single poll in August with a 15 point lead completely skews the average.

    My view is the same at General as it was in the Midterms - watch the national number, but remember that Biden probably needs to be ahead by three percentage points to be sure of a win.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    I think the twitter account is legit, it's just an account that tweets polling data and links to a website that maintains polling averages and things.

    The original RCP data is here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/#!

    However, you can't just compare the mid-west polling from 2016 then add a mental correction for "Hillary Clinton polled X but ended up at Y", because the pollsters will already have corrected for whatever they think was creating a difference between X and Y.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Wisconsin highlights this perfectly. What polls there were (about two per month) usually had Hillary ahead by 4 or 5. But a single poll in August with a 15 point lead completely skews the average.

    My view is the same at General as it was in the Midterms - watch the national number, but remember that Biden probably needs to be ahead by three percentage points to be sure of a win.
    Thanks that makes sense.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    rcs1000 said:

    LOOK! A NAZI!

    as a regular joe walks past them not spouting the catchphrase du jour.

    SHOOT HIM!

    and then someone did.

    Is that true? My understanding is that there was a pro-Trump rally to which attendees were encouraged to come armed.
    Both the Portland and Kenosha shooters have decent self defense cases from what I can see, looking at the various videos about.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    LOOK! A NAZI!

    as a regular joe walks past them not spouting the catchphrase du jour.

    SHOOT HIM!

    and then someone did.

    Is that true? My understanding is that there was a pro-Trump rally to which attendees were encouraged to come armed.
    Who could have thought that a parade of Nazis into a city protesting against violence might not end well?
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    rcs1000 said:


    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Did you mean to have PA in there? There seems to be lots of polling and IIRC it was definitely considered a key (maybe *the* key) swing state at the time.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    LOOK! A NAZI!

    as a regular joe walks past them not spouting the catchphrase du jour.

    SHOOT HIM!

    and then someone did.

    Is that true? My understanding is that there was a pro-Trump rally to which attendees were encouraged to come armed.
    Both the Portland and Kenosha shooters have decent self defense cases from what I can see, looking at the various videos about.
    Decent cases I'm not sure about, but it may be hard to find 12 impartial people willing to convict and not go off politics. Jury nullification must be a real risk.

    The Kenosha shooter had no right to be there armed - literally. He committed multiple felonies even being there with his firearm: he was underaged and his possession of the firearm was a felony; he carried the firearm illegally across state lines another felony.

    His spree of felonies ended up with two people dead - and suddenly we see "law and order" advocates online all repeating the same line saying it was self-defence and nothing to see here. Funny how law-breaking leading to deaths isn't an issue when its his law breaking.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,610
    edited August 2020

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    It's a like for like comparison and the figures are also on the RCP website.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    It's true there wasn't much polling in Michigan and Wisconsin last time.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,995
    There is the Green Party but what do they expect after Corbyn Labour was trounced at election 2019
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,334
    O/T - it used to be a nearly consensus view here that Merkel had made a terrible mistake by letting in so many Syrian refugees. On the whole it seems to be working out OK, both socially (no attacks fopr years) and politiccally (CDU back up, AfD adrift). An article putting the case in more detail:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/angela-merkel-great-migrant-gamble-paid-off

    It may turn out similarly to the Vietnamese migration - the "boat people" have generally turned out to be an asset to their new societies.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:


    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Did you mean to have PA in there? There seems to be lots of polling and IIRC it was definitely considered a key (maybe *the* key) swing state at the time.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
    Interesting looking at PA 2016 that while the polls got the result wrong giving the state narrowly to Hillary instead of Trump - though the polls were within margin of error and the polls actually underestimated Hillary.

    The problem was the polls underestimated Trump more. Hillary 46.8 average v 47.5 actual and Trump 44.7 average v 48.2 actual. So last time 8.5% were saying others or not giving an answer, vs only 4.3% voting others so there was an others to Trump swing in the polls not a Hillary to Trump swing.

    This year as it stands the average in PA is 4.7% lead to Biden which is beyond margin of error and more significantly Biden is currently polling 49.0 himself. If he does get 49% or more its hard to see how he can lose the state even if Trump squeezes the others again.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    I think the twitter account is legit, it's just an account that tweets polling data and links to a website that maintains polling averages and things.

    The original RCP data is here:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/#!

    However, you can't just compare the mid-west polling from 2016 then add a mental correction for "Hillary Clinton polled X but ended up at Y", because the pollsters will already have corrected for whatever they think was creating a difference between X and Y.
    Which is why there tends to be a polling pendulum. Look in the UK:

    2010 - Cons overstated / Lab understated
    2015 - Cons understated / Lab overstated
    2017 - Cons overstated / Lab understated
    2019 - Cons understated / Lab overstated

    And the same is true of the US. Let's compare to RCP polling average:

    2016 - Republicans outperformed by 1.1% the RCP polling aveage
    2012 - Democrats outperformed by 3.2%
    2008 - Republicans outperformed by 0.7%

    It's almost like there's a natural tendency to overcorrect each time. (It's also notable that President Trump only outperformed the RCP average by a little over 1% last time around.)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    Andy_JS said:
    If you're operating in the set ℤ ∖{4}.
  • Options

    O/T - it used to be a nearly consensus view here that Merkel had made a terrible mistake by letting in so many Syrian refugees. On the whole it seems to be working out OK, both socially (no attacks fopr years) and politiccally (CDU back up, AfD adrift). An article putting the case in more detail:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/angela-merkel-great-migrant-gamble-paid-off

    It may turn out similarly to the Vietnamese migration - the "boat people" have generally turned out to be an asset to their new societies.

    Actually as I recall many said that what she had done might have been selfishly in Germany's interests (noting Germany's specific demographics issues and abundance of empty homes) but that it was not the humane thing to do for the millions of refugees and led to people drowning to try and join in.

    That years later it may have been in Germany's interests does not make what Merkel did right.

    I stand by what I said at the time. If Merkel wanted to take people in she should have done so by flying people in direct from the refugee camps in Turkey direct and safe into Germany. Not simply say that anyone who can pay people smugglers to get them into Germany can stay there.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987

    rcs1000 said:


    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Did you mean to have PA in there? There seems to be lots of polling and IIRC it was definitely considered a key (maybe *the* key) swing state at the time.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
    Interesting looking at PA 2016 that while the polls got the result wrong giving the state narrowly to Hillary instead of Trump - though the polls were within margin of error and the polls actually underestimated Hillary.

    The problem was the polls underestimated Trump more. Hillary 46.8 average v 47.5 actual and Trump 44.7 average v 48.2 actual. So last time 8.5% were saying others or not giving an answer, vs only 4.3% voting others so there was an others to Trump swing in the polls not a Hillary to Trump swing.

    This year as it stands the average in PA is 4.7% lead to Biden which is beyond margin of error and more significantly Biden is currently polling 49.0 himself. If he does get 49% or more its hard to see how he can lose the state even if Trump squeezes the others again.
    The bull case on Biden is not the size of the spread, it is on his absolute vote share.

    Let's look back at history, comparing the end of August poll number, with what was achieved in November:

    2016:
    Clinton from 46.8 to 48.2 - up 1.4%
    Trump from 41.9 to 46.1 - up 4.2%

    2012:
    Obama from 46.4 to 51.1 - up 4.7%
    Romney from 46.1 to 48.1 - up 2.0%

    2008:
    Obama from 48.8 to 52.9 - up 4.1%
    McCain from 44.3 to 45.6 - up 1.3%

    2004:
    Kerry from 45.6 to 48.3 - up 2.6%
    Bush from 46.0 to 50.7 - up 4.7%

    2000:
    Bush from 46 to 47.9 - up 1.9%
    Gore from 45 to 48.4 - up 3.3%

    Two things: (1) Every major Presidential candidate seems to have seen their vote share rise. The smallest increase was just 1.3% for McCain in 2008. (2) No candidate was scoring as well at this point as Biden is.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Andy_JS said:

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    It's a like for like comparison and the figures are also on the RCP website.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    It's true there wasn't much polling in Michigan and Wisconsin last time.
    Worth remembering that if you'd have done seven battleground states in 2016 (by looking at 2012 results), you would probably have chosen:

    Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Nevada. And only three of them ended up going Republican.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:


    The problem with comparing with 2016 state numbers is that in 2016, most of the "battleground" states weren't considered such. There was - as a result - the square root of bugger all polling in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

    Did you mean to have PA in there? There seems to be lots of polling and IIRC it was definitely considered a key (maybe *the* key) swing state at the time.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls
    Interesting looking at PA 2016 that while the polls got the result wrong giving the state narrowly to Hillary instead of Trump - though the polls were within margin of error and the polls actually underestimated Hillary.

    The problem was the polls underestimated Trump more. Hillary 46.8 average v 47.5 actual and Trump 44.7 average v 48.2 actual. So last time 8.5% were saying others or not giving an answer, vs only 4.3% voting others so there was an others to Trump swing in the polls not a Hillary to Trump swing.

    This year as it stands the average in PA is 4.7% lead to Biden which is beyond margin of error and more significantly Biden is currently polling 49.0 himself. If he does get 49% or more its hard to see how he can lose the state even if Trump squeezes the others again.
    The bull case on Biden is not the size of the spread, it is on his absolute vote share.

    Let's look back at history, comparing the end of August poll number, with what was achieved in November:

    2016:
    Clinton from 46.8 to 48.2 - up 1.4%
    Trump from 41.9 to 46.1 - up 4.2%

    2012:
    Obama from 46.4 to 51.1 - up 4.7%
    Romney from 46.1 to 48.1 - up 2.0%

    2008:
    Obama from 48.8 to 52.9 - up 4.1%
    McCain from 44.3 to 45.6 - up 1.3%

    2004:
    Kerry from 45.6 to 48.3 - up 2.6%
    Bush from 46.0 to 50.7 - up 4.7%

    2000:
    Bush from 46 to 47.9 - up 1.9%
    Gore from 45 to 48.4 - up 3.3%

    Two things: (1) Every major Presidential candidate seems to have seen their vote share rise. The smallest increase was just 1.3% for McCain in 2008. (2) No candidate was scoring as well at this point as Biden is.
    Indeed it goes back to the question of do you look at absolute favourables or net favourables.

    On the basis of absolute polling share it is definitely Biden's election to lose. It seems quite plausible he will end up with an absolute majority of votes cast and not just a plurality.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,926
    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,610
    "The generation betrayed by Boris
    The cohort of youngsters whose futures were crushed by lockdown may never forgive the Tories
    BY LOUISE PERRY"

    https://unherd.com/2020/08/the-generation-betrayed-by-boris/
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Andy_JS said:

    "The generation betrayed by Boris
    The cohort of youngsters whose futures were crushed by lockdown may never forgive the Tories
    BY LOUISE PERRY"

    https://unherd.com/2020/08/the-generation-betrayed-by-boris/

    "whose futures were crushed by lockdown".

    Don't you think this is a little bit hyperbolic?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,377

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    Rockets landing "as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

    image
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,375
    edited August 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,375
    edited August 2020

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    Who knew Trump and Michelle had so much in common ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    Was he not ‘targeted’ as the organiser ?
    In a similar manner to these guys, who also received the fixed penalty notice ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/30/police-in-england-and-wales-break-up-illegal-raves-as-covid-fines-introduced

    By refusing to pay the fine, does he get to put his case in court ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage.

    And, of course, the first 30 million doses are earmarked for the UK and are due to be delivered by the end of September.

    It's hard to see how the US could get more than a handful of million people vaccinated before the US election (if at all).
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    More likely, the US is simply going to take Phase III data from SA and Brazil rather than simply using Phase I/II alone.

    In any case, given how few people could get vaccinated in the near term, the whole thing is just a publicity show.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Nigelb said:
    By making it harder for people to vote by post, the Trump administration is ensuring more Democrats vote on the day, and thus depriving Trump of the ability to claim the election was rigged by mail in voting.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
    I don't know, but if he's an egregious offender and the level is within the range allowed by law then what does it matter? If his challenge reveals he was unfairly punished then I will defend him, but the implication of your statement seems to be that a punishment allowed by law might be unfair simply because he is relatively well known. Given he is a well known fantasist I'm prepared to wait for more than his word before assuming he is correct. The boy who cried wolf was right about something in the end, but could hardly blame people for doubting his veracity.
    It doesn't look good if it seems some people are being treated differently to others.

    And the general impression the media are giving is that there aren't too many big fines being imposed.

    But you make a fair point that we need independent confirmation as to what has happened.
    Media reporting this morning that there have been 10 £10k fines handed out this weekend - others were to DJs and rave organisers of large public gatherings. Not sure why Mr Corbyn thinks he should be treated any differently?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    By making it harder for people to vote by post, the Trump administration is ensuring more Democrats vote on the day, and thus depriving Trump of the ability to claim the election was rigged by mail in voting.
    That one way of looking at it; time will tell.
    What was notable is that in the few states which are already 100% ‘voting by mail’, over half those votes are returned via drop boxes.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
    But presumably the organisers will get told of any confirmed CV19 cases, and can then check it against whether someone was given the vaccine or not.

    For the record, given all the dangers (in particular the risk of creating something that kills more people than the disease), it would be insane to approve a vaccine without proper testing.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    edited August 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
    But presumably the organisers will get told of any confirmed CV19 cases, and can then check it against whether someone was given the vaccine or not.

    For the record, given all the dangers (in particular the risk of creating something that kills more people than the disease), it would be insane to approve a vaccine without proper testing.
    That’s not how it works. A double blinded survey means the investigators do not know until the trial reaches a predetermined endpoint; they don’t get to peak at the data as it goes along - and they don’t know who was or wasn’t given the vaccine until the data is unblinded.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
    But presumably the organisers will get told of any confirmed CV19 cases, and can then check it against whether someone was given the vaccine or not.

    For the record, given all the dangers (in particular the risk of creating something that kills more people than the disease), it would be insane to approve a vaccine without proper testing.
    That’s not how it works. A double blinded survey means the investigators do not know until the trial reaches a predetermined endpoint; they don’t get to peak at the data as it goes along - and they don’t know who was or wasn’t given the vaccine until the data is unblinded.
    I learned something today.
    Thank you.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    Andy_JS said:
    Everyone knows that 2+2=5, for large enough values of 2. ;)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
    But presumably the organisers will get told of any confirmed CV19 cases, and can then check it against whether someone was given the vaccine or not.

    For the record, given all the dangers (in particular the risk of creating something that kills more people than the disease), it would be insane to approve a vaccine without proper testing.
    That’s not how it works. A double blinded survey means the investigators do not know until the trial reaches a predetermined endpoint; they don’t get to peak at the data as it goes along - and they don’t know who was or wasn’t given the vaccine until the data is unblinded.
    I learned something today.
    Thank you.
    The Phase 2/3 UK trial, which started enrolling at the beginning of May is perhaps the one this story refers to. It is single blinded (only the participants don’t know what they’ve been given), and subjects are swabbed weekly for infection.
    https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk/files/cov002pisages56-69yearsv9020jul20southpdf

    It is just about possible that they have results by October, but given the drop in UK infections over the summer, only if they were remarkably quick in enrolling volunteers, and the vaccine is very effective ?

    What does @Foxy think ?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
    It's also worth remembering that SpaceX use RP-1 as its fuel. Basically, it's just a purified version of Jet-A (kerosene), and so their fuel cost per launch are incredibly low too.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    .
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Is Trump really going to force through approval of the vaccine based on the Phase I/II results ?

    https://twitter.com/AndyBiotech/status/1300076079097548802

    Don't forget that Phase III started in South Africa and Brazil almost six weeks ago. If the placebo group has gotten a fair number of CV19 cases, and the vaccine group have (ideally) got none, and there have been no side effects, then it's possible...

    Although given that there are - what two weeks? - between the doses, any data is very, very preliminary at this stage...
    It’s a double blinded trial, so that data simply isn’t there yet to make such a decision.
    But presumably the organisers will get told of any confirmed CV19 cases, and can then check it against whether someone was given the vaccine or not.

    For the record, given all the dangers (in particular the risk of creating something that kills more people than the disease), it would be insane to approve a vaccine without proper testing.
    That’s not how it works. A double blinded survey means the investigators do not know until the trial reaches a predetermined endpoint; they don’t get to peak at the data as it goes along - and they don’t know who was or wasn’t given the vaccine until the data is unblinded.
    I learned something today.
    Thank you.
    You’re welcome.
    ... but after a bit of googling around, so did I. The Brazil trial is also single blinded:
    https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ISRCTN89951424
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
    The aim is for a minimum of ten reuses, but with component replacement, Musk is talking about the prospect of 100.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,987
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
    It's also worth remembering that SpaceX use RP-1 as its fuel. Basically, it's just a purified version of Jet-A (kerosene), and so their fuel cost per launch are incredibly low too.
    I want to put this in context for a second: this means that the cost of the propellant - liquid oxygen plus RP-1 - for each regular SpaceX launch is just $200,000.

    Reusable rockets plus $200k of fuel means launches more than order of magnitude cheaper than Ariane or the Russians - and possibly two orders of magnitude (yes really) cheaper than Boeing on a kg for kg basis.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,274

    Seems a good opportunity to top up on Biden at favourable odds.

    Given the age risk, laying Trump is safer
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,983
    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    A private 'Chat' message?

    And Good Morning to one and all.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,586
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
    It's also worth remembering that SpaceX use RP-1 as its fuel. Basically, it's just a purified version of Jet-A (kerosene), and so their fuel cost per launch are incredibly low too.
    I want to put this in context for a second: this means that the cost of the propellant - liquid oxygen plus RP-1 - for each regular SpaceX launch is just $200,000.

    Reusable rockets plus $200k of fuel means launches more than order of magnitude cheaper than Ariane or the Russians - and possibly two orders of magnitude (yes really) cheaper than Boeing on a kg for kg basis.
    Those aren’t the only costs, of course - there’s quite a lot involved in re-readying a launcher for another flight (and there’s also a payload penalty in carrying the extra fuel to land the booster), but it is massively cheaper.

    Here’s Musk’s tweet about 100 launches:
    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1296158590646939649
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,896
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Were it not for some inclement weather, SpaceX would have launched and landed two rockets on the same day from Florida today.

    Its remarkable how quickly SpaceX launching and landing rockets has gone from incredible, to almost routine. They really are transforming space and after a few decades where it almost felt like we'd abandoned space it is starting to feel like we are heading back into the stars like new again.

    I grew up watching old re-runs of Lost In Space and shows like that after school, but man hasn't been on the moon for nearly half a century now, since a decade before I was even more . . . but SpaceX really are making it feel close again now.
    SpaceX launched a couple of hours ago. How quickly they forget! Is one launch in one day not enough? And remember that other rockets have been launched but they are not livestreamed. All those satellites did not fly themselves up, and we have seen missions to Mars, the moon,
    Hmm. Never did finish that sentence! Anyway, here is the SpaceX SAOCOM 1B (for Argentina) video from two hours ago. The comments include timestamps linked to various highlights.
    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gLOsDjE3E
    I could watch these all day. Quite amazing how far SpaceX have taken the state of the art of what's quite literally rocket science over the last decade.

    That first stage has been reused four times now, which substantially lowers the cost of each mission, making space much more accessible for businesses and governments. The Starlink project could genuinely revolutionise human communications when it goes live next year.
    It's also worth remembering that SpaceX use RP-1 as its fuel. Basically, it's just a purified version of Jet-A (kerosene), and so their fuel cost per launch are incredibly low too.
    Yes, they run them on what's basically refined jet plane fuel, as opposed to other rockets which use very exotic hypergolic fuels, expensively produced in very small quantities and needing to be handled with extreme care at all times.

    With sensible fuel and re-usable rockets the cost of launches comes down dramatically, they're aiming for $1m/tonne into low earth orbit which is totally nuts. Each Shuttle launch used to cost a couple of $bn.
  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,684

    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    A private 'Chat' message?
    And Good Morning to one and all.
    A private chat message is not the answer. Anything in writing means that you are committing yourself.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,983
    ClippP said:

    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    A private 'Chat' message?
    And Good Morning to one and all.
    A private chat message is not the answer. Anything in writing means that you are committing yourself.
    Hmm. Is there a 'raised eyebrows' emoji?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited August 2020
    Andy_JS said:

    Which states are defined as top battleground states and is that a like-for-like comparison between the years?

    And is that an authentic Tweet? I note the lack of a blue tick and the weird spelling in the handle.
    It's a like for like comparison and the figures are also on the RCP website.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states-2020-vs-2016/

    It's true there wasn't much polling in Michigan and Wisconsin last time.
    Call me an idiot but I can't see what states it lists as battleground states.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744

    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    You just exchange Skype messages with your trusted colleague during the meeting.

    That's what we do, anyway.
    Not the same thing at all. Especially due to the risk if accidentally typing in the wrong window.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,231

    ClippP said:

    kle4 said:

    This has been bothering me for months - it's most of what I do in a meeting.
    https://twitter.com/TheRebeccaMetz/status/1299869241156362240

    A private 'Chat' message?
    And Good Morning to one and all.
    A private chat message is not the answer. Anything in writing means that you are committing yourself.
    Hmm. Is there a 'raised eyebrows' emoji?
    https://emojipedia.org/face-with-raised-eyebrow/
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Well parliament made the law, so that would ordering such an arrest from on high for those breaking it.

    Hopefully no mistakes were made along the way, as that crank deserves to face up to his punishment.
    Andy_JS said:

    dr_spyn said:
    It seems a bit partial to target him in particular.
    You seem to have bought into his conspiracy theorist mindset that he was indeed targeted in particular, I wonder why.

    Even if he was he gets a lot of press for his crank views and breaking the law in this way, so the targeting, if it happened, is not necessarily unreasonable.
    How many other people have received fines of that level ?
    I don't know, but if he's an egregious offender and the level is within the range allowed by law then what does it matter? If his challenge reveals he was unfairly punished then I will defend him, but the implication of your statement seems to be that a punishment allowed by law might be unfair simply because he is relatively well known. Given he is a well known fantasist I'm prepared to wait for more than his word before assuming he is correct. The boy who cried wolf was right about something in the end, but could hardly blame people for doubting his veracity.
    It doesn't look good if it seems some people are being treated differently to others.

    And the general impression the media are giving is that there aren't too many big fines being imposed.

    But you make a fair point that we need independent confirmation as to what has happened.
    Media reporting this morning that there have been 10 £10k fines handed out this weekend - others were to DJs and rave organisers of large public gatherings. Not sure why Mr Corbyn thinks he should be treated any differently?
    Because he is fighting the lizard people in the name of freedom.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,744
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "The generation betrayed by Boris
    The cohort of youngsters whose futures were crushed by lockdown may never forgive the Tories
    BY LOUISE PERRY"

    https://unherd.com/2020/08/the-generation-betrayed-by-boris/

    "whose futures were crushed by lockdown".

    Don't you think this is a little bit hyperbolic?
    And the bit where they were 'betrayed'. Its a hyperbole masterclass of a headline
This discussion has been closed.