Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
The way you sort schools and education, is to concentrate on the failing schools and the disadvantaged pupils. Level up.
You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
One thing councils could do straight away that I would like to see is a volunteer mentor scheme. You sign up as a volunteer and pupils can ask to be included at their schools. Your task is to be available to help with homework, advice, just to listen and encourage. Would give libraries a use in the modern age. Now my offspring has flown the nest I would be quite happy to give a few hours a week to help out.
Also a scheme for redundant hardware to be donated. I have several laptops I have outgrown that can still do things like browse the web and office apps.
Also issuing data only sims. My supplier for mobile does 8gb of data for 10£ thats 520 a year per child and I am sure councils could negotiate that down and only supplied to the disadvantaged. 8gb is more than enough for school work in normal times though maybe not the current distant learning.
There are three things that could be done straight away at little cost that would help the disadvantaged that want to learn a hell of a lot more than banning private schools
There are plenty of mentoring schemes.
If you really do want to volunteer send me a PM and I’ll get you hooked up into The Fore Network which has some of the best pro bono opportunities out there
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
I think most of the Trump rampers are probably currently incarcerated.....
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
The story has made Trump's job a tiny bit harder. The world is rarely full of step functions, and this isn't one. But the path he has to climb - and he has only 58 days left - has got a little steeper.
Let's assume he wins the electoral college if he's 3 points behind or less. And let's assume the the polls overstate Biden's lead by two points.
That means Trump needs to take two points off biden in the next 58 days. Possible, absolutely. But far from certain. And this also relies on the - possibly fallacious assumption - that Trump is understated in the polls.
From a month back admittedly but an interview with ex-DNC Chair Ed Rennell who think, in PA at least, Trump is doing better than the polls:
I think one of Biden’s issues is going to be that he probably doesn’t have the advantage Clinton had over Trump amongst the Latino community (polling has shown Trump is picking up some support) and probably the Black community.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
Andrew Neil is now doing exactly the thing he was criticising the Co-op for. He's "no platforming" them because the person running their social media account (some poor sod who may well lose their job) was fairly clear they didn't like the Spectator's editorial line.
The only logical position for Neil and the Spectator is "the Co-op can advertise with us if they want or not if they don't - it's entirely up to them but won't alter our editorial position one jot either way".
No, they aren't advocating other people to stop going there. The co-op and other stupid private companies are signing up to idiotic "anti-hate speech" campaigns which seek to silence opinions they don't agree with. The Speccie is absolutely justified in withdrawing from an advertising relationship with them until the co-op reviews this policy and stops trying to use it's advertising money to influence editorial decisions.
I'm reliably informed that Unilever have had a round of training with all social media teams who have been instructed that Tories buy stuff too and around half of the country is right of centre. The co-op probably needs the same training.
Unilever, the owner of Ben & Jerry's.
Ben and Jerry's, a history of exploiting illegal immigrants.
Foreign Secretary buttered up the US President to his Ambassador?
Not a very major or explosive story. Given Trump's notorious ego, stroking his ego is what government's around the world are doing. Even if they're then laughing at him behind his back.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
So. For this to race be 50-50, according to these numbers, requires a little bit more than a 2.5% lead for Biden. (As 2-3% is a 47% chance of a Biden win.)
I have said repeatedly, that I think Biden is a 65-70% chance (although probably closer to 70% now), with the value bet being on him winning by a comfortable margin.
Those numbers from Nate bear me out. A 65-70% chance of winning is a little bit more than a 3% lead. Trump currently trails by 7 points, and that gap is very stable.
As we get closer and closer to election day, then if the polls don't move (and so far they haven't moved), then Trump's only chance is that the polls aren't wrong like 2016 (where they were 1% out), but that they'e 3-4 points out.
Now that's possible. But I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
Banking on pollsters - in aggregate, and at the national level - being more than a percent or two out seems like a mugs game. And assuming it's definitely going to go in one direction (Obama outperformed the polls in 2012) is a double mugs game.
Depends which polls, Emerson and Rasmussen already have Biden's national popular vote lead below 5%, Emerson has Biden just 2% ahead
Speaking as a liberal conservative - no, there's a lot of us around.
Though given Parris seems to define liberal conservativism as being pro-EU for some reason, I doubt he'd recognise me as a liberal conservative. Since when liberal meant pro-EU I don't know, but liberal conservativism shouldn't be about the EU.
Like all fools I rely only on wikipedia, which states: In Europe, liberal conservatism is the dominant form of contemporary conservatism and centre-right politics.
So that settles it I guess.
On your point, perhaps it is the case that liberal conservatives are more likely to have been pro-EU conservatives, I don't know, but inasmuch as we can accept any political ideology as being a genuine thing (that is, not much), it surely is broader than a single issue. Otherwise there'd be a million different liberal conservative factions instead of (I'm guessing) a few.
So the UK foreign secretary at the time attempted to schmooze foreign leaders and states? Fawning praise works on Trump, it's humiliating but probably happens a lot in diplomatic circles.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
So the UK foreign secretary at the time attempted to schmooze foreign leaders and states? Fawning praise works on Trump, it's humiliating but probably happens a lot in diplomatic circles.
Well not just that, he's also trying to hide some UK foreign policy goals in there like keeping the Iran nuclear deal going. I'm sure Twitter will work itself into a masturbatory frenzy over this but the rest of the country will shrug and think "well at least he tried to do that job".
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
I thought the array of people who were with him all loyally denying it will have blunted it for his supporters, even though I note that AP sources say the story is "100% true". The problem is that it's easy to imagine him saying it, because he likes saying whatever comes into his head. I'd have thought it would damage him, but only slightly.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
Foreign Secretary buttered up the US President to his Ambassador?
Not a very major or explosive story. Given Trump's notorious ego, stroking his ego is what government's around the world are doing. Even if they're then laughing at him behind his back.
That is a pretty amusing clip. You do wonder what other japes world leaders get up to when one of their number is absent. I'm sure plenty of them have fun about Boris, and others, although probably not as often as they used to now the chances of getting spotted are so much higher. It'd probably have been relaxing for leaders to moan about their respective legislatures and public to each other with someone who can relate to it.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
The problem is that it's easy to imagine him saying it, because he likes saying whatever comes into his head. I'd have thought it would damage him, but only slightly.
I still think it would be hilarious if a man who repeatedly says outrageous things and makes up things about his opponents were to be sunk by something he did not actually say because it seems like it could be true, but as you say things are generally not so decisive.
Speaking as a liberal conservative - no, there's a lot of us around.
Though given Parris seems to define liberal conservativism as being pro-EU for some reason, I doubt he'd recognise me as a liberal conservative. Since when liberal meant pro-EU I don't know, but liberal conservativism shouldn't be about the EU.
Like all fools I rely only on wikipedia, which states: In Europe, liberal conservatism is the dominant form of contemporary conservatism and centre-right politics.
So that settles it I guess.
On your point, perhaps it is the case that liberal conservatives are more likely to have been pro-EU conservatives, I don't know, but inasmuch as we can accept any political ideology as being a genuine thing (that is, not much), it surely is broader than a single issue. Otherwise there'd be a million different liberal conservative factions instead of (I'm guessing) a few.
Agreed. Boris is a liberal conservative too, as is Gove, but Parris is redefining it to mean just pro-EU.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
So. For this to race be 50-50, according to these numbers, requires a little bit more than a 2.5% lead for Biden. (As 2-3% is a 47% chance of a Biden win.)
I have said repeatedly, that I think Biden is a 65-70% chance (although probably closer to 70% now), with the value bet being on him winning by a comfortable margin.
Those numbers from Nate bear me out. A 65-70% chance of winning is a little bit more than a 3% lead. Trump currently trails by 7 points, and that gap is very stable.
As we get closer and closer to election day, then if the polls don't move (and so far they haven't moved), then Trump's only chance is that the polls aren't wrong like 2016 (where they were 1% out), but that they'e 3-4 points out.
Now that's possible. But I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
Banking on pollsters - in aggregate, and at the national level - being more than a percent or two out seems like a mugs game. And assuming it's definitely going to go in one direction (Obama outperformed the polls in 2012) is a double mugs game.
Depends which polls, Emerson and Rasmussen already have Biden's national popular vote lead below 5%, Emerson has Biden just 2% ahead
1) an unfortunate unrelated physical reaction which makes it look like Trump said something they guy did not expect but in fact he did 2) Trump cocked up and is either going to look stupid or bully them into now doing it 3) Trump did it intentionally as a power move, which might work, but which will probably really piss them off in any future attempts at relations.
Although if that is how bad he is at covering up his thoughts, then he probably was out negotiated!
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
So. For this to race be 50-50, according to these numbers, requires a little bit more than a 2.5% lead for Biden. (As 2-3% is a 47% chance of a Biden win.)
I have said repeatedly, that I think Biden is a 65-70% chance (although probably closer to 70% now), with the value bet being on him winning by a comfortable margin.
Those numbers from Nate bear me out. A 65-70% chance of winning is a little bit more than a 3% lead. Trump currently trails by 7 points, and that gap is very stable.
As we get closer and closer to election day, then if the polls don't move (and so far they haven't moved), then Trump's only chance is that the polls aren't wrong like 2016 (where they were 1% out), but that they'e 3-4 points out.
Now that's possible. But I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
Banking on pollsters - in aggregate, and at the national level - being more than a percent or two out seems like a mugs game. And assuming it's definitely going to go in one direction (Obama outperformed the polls in 2012) is a double mugs game.
Depends which polls, Emerson and Rasmussen already have Biden's national popular vote lead below 5%, Emerson has Biden just 2% ahead
In 2016, Rs understated by 1.1%. 2012, Ds understated by 3.2% 2008, Rs understated by 0.3% 2004, Rs understated by 0.9% 2000, Ds understated by 0.9%
There's not a lot before then, although we could create our own.
In only one case - 2012 - was there a polling error of more than 1.1%.
In 2016 there was also a polling error of more than 1%, though you conveniently set it at 1.1%.
If the error is repeated that would mean Biden has an average poll lead of 6% based on the RCP average, it then only takes a swing of 1 to 2% to Trump in the popular vote and a good Trump debate performance and the EC is almost neck and neck based on Nate Silver's chart
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
Handily 'droves' could mean any number so long as it was a lot, and the size of the country means even a small percentage would be a lot, so it would always be true. I think Boris pulled a similar trick the other day talking about numbers going back to school, or the office.
Bit disappointing about Boris - comes across as a wide-eyed child over Trump.
To Trump's Ambassador that Trump hand picked and who would be reporting back what was discussed. What do you expect him to do, go up to him and say "your boss is a knob"?
All governments play this game. Macron has been buttering up Trump to his face too.
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
Handily 'droves' could mean any number so long as it was a lot, and the size of the country means even a small percentage would be a lot, so it would always be true. I think Boris pulled a similar trick the other day talking about numbers going back to school, or the office.
It wasn't a trick, the data that's been released does show large numbers going back.
Car usage now is back to roughly 100% of what it was pre-pandemic. Given that over 80% of people who travel to work do so by car, the fact that car usage is back at 100% of pre-pandemic usage does indeed support the notion that large numbers have gone back to work.
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
Handily 'droves' could mean any number so long as it was a lot, and the size of the country means even a small percentage would be a lot, so it would always be true. I think Boris pulled a similar trick the other day talking about numbers going back to school, or the office.
It wasn't a trick, the data that's been released does show large numbers going back.
Car usage now is back to roughly 100% of what it was pre-pandemic. Given that over 80% of people who travel to work do so by car, the fact that car usage is back at 100% of pre-pandemic usage does indeed support the notion that large numbers have gone back to work.
The trick would be being careful enough in language that he couldn't be wrong. Say it is large numbers (or words to that effect) and you cannot be wrong even if the level is not as much as implied (which was the accusation - true or not) by the words, since even a lesser level would still be large. People might then get upset at what they believe to be the implication, but calling it untruthful would be wrong.
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
Handily 'droves' could mean any number so long as it was a lot, and the size of the country means even a small percentage would be a lot, so it would always be true. I think Boris pulled a similar trick the other day talking about numbers going back to school, or the office.
It wasn't a trick, the data that's been released does show large numbers going back.
Car usage now is back to roughly 100% of what it was pre-pandemic. Given that over 80% of people who travel to work do so by car, the fact that car usage is back at 100% of pre-pandemic usage does indeed support the notion that large numbers have gone back to work.
The trick would be being careful enough in language that he couldn't be wrong. Say it is large numbers (or words to that effect) and you cannot be wrong even if the level is not as much as implied (which was the accusation - true or not) by the words, since even a lesser level would still be large. People might then get upset at what they believe to be the implication, but calling it untruthful would be wrong.
That is true, though given the figures that were released the large numbers were larger than I expected. I didn't expect to see car usage at 100%
I think there is a dilemma that some people, especially in the media, are so used to cities and especially London and Manchester that they see quiet trains and think that represents the country.
Apologies in advance to Sunil but this country spends too much time and effort banging on about trains! For over 80% of the workforce the car is the mode of transport, not the train, not that you'd know it listening to the media.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Re. people like Michael Moore: when someone warns that Trump might win again, instead of being listened to they're often accused of being a secret Trump supporter. Doesn't really make sense because a genuine Trump supporter wouldn't say anything if they thought they were going to win under the radar again.
Some people react like that, but I think a lot of people (me included) simply say that although Moore undoubtedly wants the Democrats to win, his strategy for doing so probably isn't right and was rejected by primary voters.
There was a clear choice in the primaries - target core voter turnout even at the expense of independents (Sanders/Moore) or target independents even at the expense of core voter turnout (Biden).
In terms of Moore pointing out poorer polls for Biden to make his case - sure, we can all pick cherries. Relatively few people think Biden has it in the bag, and the cherry pickers may be picking the right cherries. But playing the averages, there isn't actually a strong case for Biden to abandon the strategy primary voters chose him in order to pursue.
In 2016, state polling wouldn't have helped you. Really, the questions you needed to answer were:
1) The polling average has Trump 3% behind, is it possible he's really only 2% behind?
Answer: obviously yes
2) Is there a plausible path for Trump to win the electoral college with a 2% popular vote deficit?
Answer: probably yes
The first of the two options was probably one-in-three (or maybe less), and the second, perhaps the two-in-five. Which meant anyone giving Trump odds of more than about 8-1 was an idiot.
Let's turn it around:
1) The polling average has Trump 7% behind, is it possible he's really only 3% behind?
Answer: yes, but that's a much, much bigger polling miss required. I'd say, it's probably a one-in-eight or ten shot.
2) Can Trump win with a 3% deficit on the night?
Answer: yes, but that's probably about the limit. Any more than 3% and - no matter how big Biden's leads in California - the votes have to go somewhere, and it would be really hard for Biden not to win with a 3% lead.
To win, Trump has to narrow the polling deficit from seven points to at most four or five. Is that possible? Yes. But it does need Biden's vote share to start dropping. And Biden's been stubbornly stuck around 50% for six months, nary changing irrespective of BLM, riots, CV19 or anything else.
If the election was held tomorrow, Trump would be a 10-1 shot. It is the uncertainty of events, and weakness of Biden in the campaign, that makes him a better chance today.
But OGH and David Herdson are absolutely correct: Biden is not a 50% chance he's a 70% one.
I have constructed a spreadsheet with the current 538 polling average and Trump winning the EC.
It is depressingly plausible
Sure, if Biden comes tantalisingly close in Texas, Georgia, etc., then he could be seven points ahead and still lose.
But it's not actually that likely. Random wobble is a powerful force, and Trump would need to flip six or seven heads in a row.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
Most notable is all those Republican Senators and House Representatives ... not lining up to defend Trump over the last 24 hours.
A counter argument would be that Biden was careful to use the word “of” to describe the report and there has not been a piling on of coordinated Democrat attacks by multiple representatives attacking the remarks. I think there is slight nervousness on both sides as to the accuracy of the reports
Most notable is all those Republican Senators and House Representatives ... not lining up to defend Trump over the last 24 hours.
A counter argument would be that Biden was careful to use the word “of” to describe the report and there has not been a piling on of coordinated Democrat attacks by multiple representatives attacking the remarks. I think there is slight nervousness on both sides as to the accuracy of the reports
It did seem a striking note of caution, for all the attack was powerfully made.
The brutality of it, the heart bleeds, amidst the name dropping
'Robert Gage, my hairdresser for over ten years, fired me. When I called to make my appointment, at the salon where he’d proudly hung my photo on the wall, I was told by him: ‘It would be embarrassing for everyone to have you here.’
Then in early 2004, I called up my ‘good friend’ Abbey, the manager of the Manhattan Manolo Blahnik shop. (Money was already in short supply, but old habits die hard.)
‘Abbey, I think the situation calls for a pair of mood-lifting shoes,’ I said, trying to emulate an upbeat voice.
‘You’ve got quite enough,’ she replied brusquely and hung up. How poisonous must one be when even the New York vendeuses wish to distance themselves...Was it possible that my husband’s fees [from Hollinger] were exorbitant because of me? He’d assured me they were par for the course in the type of deals he was doing, but I still can’t help thinking that marrying me was a disaster.
..Looking for succour, about a week after Conrad’s forced resignation as Hollinger CEO, I spotted Ghislaine Maxwell at a reception. She had been importuning my friendship before our crash with repeat invites for us to go to the island owned by Jeffrey Epstein — yet to be accused of being a paedophile. Putting on my ‘so good to see you’ face, I headed for her.
She bolted.At the opera, Mercedes Bass [wife of billionaire investor and philanthropist Sid Bass] leaned over the partition between her box and ours before the overture and loudly berated me for not keeping in touch with her. The exchange lasted a minute only, mercifully concluded as the orchestra began. Her box’s occupants rushed out at the opera’s conclusion.
Next day, being a chump from Mars, I took Mercedes at her word and sent her an effusive email. There was no response from Mercedes to that, nor to the following three emails I sent.
Bravely, Jayne Wrightsman [billionaire philanthropist who died in 2019] gave the last supper for us at her home on Fifth Avenue. Jayne would never cease keeping in contact with both of us through letters and telephone calls so long as she was physically able, but she would never again see us in public or invite us to her home.
The final goodbye from TV interviewer Barbara Walters came in December 2005, just after criminal charges were laid. Her email confronted the delicate problem of how to write to people in our situation and I think she did it fairly well. She made an effort where none of the others in the Group did.
With a few extraordinary exceptions, our UK acquaintances carefully retreated. Elton John was one of those exceptions: he took me out to dinner. ‘This is for you,’ he said, presenting me with a quite lovely pavé diamond star and chain from the jeweller Theo Fennell.'
Most notable is all those Republican Senators and House Representatives ... not lining up to defend Trump over the last 24 hours.
A counter argument would be that Biden was careful to use the word “of” to describe the report and there has not been a piling on of coordinated Democrat attacks by multiple representatives attacking the remarks. I think there is slight nervousness on both sides as to the accuracy of the reports
Actually I think the Democrats are smart not to have a piling on. Doing so would make it look like a partisan hitjob and take away its potency.
Having the outrage of the words themselves, combined with the simple raw emotion of Biden's response . . . it is elegantly pure and simple.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
The brutality of it, the heart bleeds, amidst the name dropping
'Robert Gage, my hairdresser for over ten years, fired me. When I called to make my appointment, at the salon where he’d proudly hung my photo on the wall, I was told by him: ‘It would be embarrassing for everyone to have you here.’
Then in early 2004, I called up my ‘good friend’ Abbey, the manager of the Manhattan Manolo Blahnik shop. (Money was already in short supply, but old habits die hard.)
‘Abbey, I think the situation calls for a pair of mood-lifting shoes,’ I said, trying to emulate an upbeat voice.
‘You’ve got quite enough,’ she replied brusquely and hung up. How poisonous must one be when even the New York vendeuses wish to distance themselves...Was it possible that my husband’s fees [from Hollinger] were exorbitant because of me? He’d assured me they were par for the course in the type of deals he was doing, but I still can’t help thinking that marrying me was a disaster.
..Looking for succour, about a week after Conrad’s forced resignation as Hollinger CEO, I spotted Ghislaine Maxwell at a reception. She had been importuning my friendship before our crash with repeat invites for us to go to the island owned by Jeffrey Epstein — yet to be accused of being a paedophile. Putting on my ‘so good to see you’ face, I headed for her.
She bolted.At the opera, Mercedes Bass [wife of billionaire investor and philanthropist Sid Bass] leaned over the partition between her box and ours before the overture and loudly berated me for not keeping in touch with her. The exchange lasted a minute only, mercifully concluded as the orchestra began. Her box’s occupants rushed out at the opera’s conclusion.
Next day, being a chump from Mars, I took Mercedes at her word and sent her an effusive email. There was no response from Mercedes to that, nor to the following three emails I sent.
Bravely, Jayne Wrightsman [billionaire philanthropist who died in 2019] gave the last supper for us at her home on Fifth Avenue. Jayne would never cease keeping in contact with both of us through letters and telephone calls so long as she was physically able, but she would never again see us in public or invite us to her home.
The final goodbye from TV interviewer Barbara Walters came in December 2005, just after criminal charges were laid. Her email confronted the delicate problem of how to write to people in our situation and I think she did it fairly well. She made an effort where none of the others in the Group did.
With a few extraordinary exceptions, our UK acquaintances carefully retreated. Elton John was one of those exceptions: he took me out to dinner. ‘This is for you,’ he said, presenting me with a quite lovely pavé diamond star and chain from the jeweller Theo Fennell.'
Fans have flocked to a church in Germany to hear a chord change in a music which lasts for 639 years. It is the first chord change to As Slow As Possible in seven years.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
Absolutely the collapse of law and order in Trump's America is absolutely shocking.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
The UK has blinked every previous time, including Johnson with his "get Brexit done" Withdrawal Agreement
The reason for the aggressive rhetoric is to deflect from mucking up Covid. They aren't interested in negotiating a deal.
Also David Frost comes across as not understanding the first thing about trade. OK, the preposterous Board of Trade with the absurd Marcus Fysh, Daniel Hannan and Tony Abbott is purely an exercise in trolling. But this guy is supposed to actually deliver something.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
Highly unlikely, even if Biden wins Trump will still be ahead on election night as most Republicans intend to vote on the day and most Democrats by mail.
If Biden wins it will only be in subsequent days as the remaining mail ballots are counted and processed
Votes for women, an end to slavery and legalisation of gay marriage would have been considered extreme opinions at one time.
Yes, you will note I am imputing neither vice or virtue to moderation. It's merely an exercise commissioned by Philip Thompson to help us draw up a jury to answer the question that started all this -
Was Labour's 2015 manifesto moderate or was it not?
It was, of course. But we're having to do it the hard way. No probs since I'm not busy.
I`d say that "moderate" usually refers to people who are centre-ish on the left to right spectrum.
So, I`d say that all liberals are moderates, some conservatives are and some collectivists are.
I think it would be peachy if we were all moderates.
You're looking at it much the same as me. And as I said at the onset I think the vast majority of PB posters ARE moderates. Even I am really, if you exclude wanting a new economic model based on common ownership and parents removed from the loop as regards the education of their children.
Parents are responsible for a huge amount of their children's education: removing them from the loop would be child abuse.
We're mainly talking about no more school fees. Hardly think 93% of parents are guilty of child abuse.
Do you really think that paying for an education is the only way that parents are "in the loop" of their children's education? And where are you getting the 93% figure from?
Of course not. Parents do loads of stuff to help their children develop and learn, some bad, mostly good. And long may it remain so - with maximum good and minimum bad. All will agree with that.
We can replace "remove from the loop" with "substantially reduce the impact of parental bank balance" if we want to be more cuddly sounding. But I was wanting to make it sound more radical than it truly is so that I didn't get tagged as a moderate.
The 93% is those who do not pay school fees.
You didn't say ban private schools because you have been told its a stupid idea and told why its a stupid idea many many times on here is why you tried an alternative phrase.
Banning private schools would only make the disadvantaged worse off.
7% reduction in education spend per child 7% larger class sizes No hope of renting a house in an area with a good school as they are snapped up by the rich so their offspring don't need to go to gastown secondary modern. Extra money for those that used to pay school fees to spend on home education to make sure their offspring still get the best results and use up the places that some of the disadvantaged got previously in grammar and state selective schools.
Its a policy where if ever implemented you would soon be bemoaning all the unintended side affects on the worst off kids
Well private schools are indisputably engines of class inequality. Nobody in their right mind denies that. So we must turn this around and ask ourselves -
What benefits do they bring which are so great as justify the inequality they create and embed in society?
I could say "answers on a postcard" but will not because that would be flippant. There are benefits. Some are centres of excellence (for those who can afford it). They allow parents (who can afford it) to spend their money on giving their kids a good education. They offer scholarships (not many but some) to bright kids from poor backgrounds. Which is great for them. They rescue some kids who would struggle or be bullied in the mainstream (providing their parents can pay the fees). And this list is not exhaustive.
But is this enough?
It isn't. Not for me. It fails the cost/benefit test.
The way you sort schools and education, is to concentrate on the failing schools and the disadvantaged pupils. Level up.
You’re trying to concentrate on the already well off and good schools. Levelling down.
One thing councils could do straight away that I would like to see is a volunteer mentor scheme. You sign up as a volunteer and pupils can ask to be included at their schools. Your task is to be available to help with homework, advice, just to listen and encourage. Would give libraries a use in the modern age. Now my offspring has flown the nest I would be quite happy to give a few hours a week to help out.
Also a scheme for redundant hardware to be donated. I have several laptops I have outgrown that can still do things like browse the web and office apps.
Also issuing data only sims. My supplier for mobile does 8gb of data for 10£ thats 520 a year per child and I am sure councils could negotiate that down and only supplied to the disadvantaged. 8gb is more than enough for school work in normal times though maybe not the current distant learning.
There are three things that could be done straight away at little cost that would help the disadvantaged that want to learn a hell of a lot more than banning private schools
There are plenty of mentoring schemes.
If you really do want to volunteer send me a PM and I’ll get you hooked up into The Fore Network which has some of the best pro bono opportunities out there
I will follow that up I can tutor in maths physic and computer science however the point remains they shouldnt be national programs but local
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
Clinton's problem was that she couldn't offer them a convincing counter-narrative, combined with the fact that she couldn't get her core supporters to turn out, and that swing voters just didn't like her. But the reality is that the voters who constitute Trump's core are not going to vote Democrat even if Biden wrapped himself in a Confederate flag and got a personal endorsement from Jesus. The Democrats just have to win convincingly among the remaining 70% of the population. So far it looks like they probably will.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
Absolutely the collapse of law and order in Trump's America is absolutely shocking.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
Law and order is not a Federal issue. No one is blaming the rise in murders in places like Chicago and New York at Trump’s doors.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
Absolutely the collapse of law and order in Trump's America is absolutely shocking.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
Law and order is not a Federal issue. No one is blaming the rise in murders in places like Chicago and New York at Trump’s doors.
All good Presidents act Presidential to calm tensions, that you don't think Trump is capable of even attempting that shows just how weak on law and order Trump is. This is happening on his watch.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
Clinton's problem was that she couldn't offer them a convincing counter-narrative, combined with the fact that she couldn't get her core supporters to turn out, and that swing voters just didn't like her. But the reality is that the voters who constitute Trump's core are not going to vote Democrat even if Biden wrapped himself in a Confederate flag and got a personal endorsement from Jesus. The Democrats just have to win convincingly among the remaining 70% of the population. So far it looks like they probably will.
I don’t see much about Biden that is dissimilar to Clinton as a candidate. He doesn’t enthuse. He’s not offering anything particularly relevant or exciting. He’s just not Trump. Ok, he’s probably less toxic to a fair few people than Clinton was but, balancing that, I’m sure Clinton probably got a little bit of a boost from being the first potential female President.
Turnout is key in US elections. Trump’s supporters are enthused. Biden’s are “meh” (but the anti-Trumpers are definitely fired up)
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
Absolutely the collapse of law and order in Trump's America is absolutely shocking.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
Law and order is not a Federal issue. No one is blaming the rise in murders in places like Chicago and New York at Trump’s doors.
All good Presidents act Presidential to calm tensions, that you don't think Trump is capable of even attempting that shows just how weak on law and order Trump is. This is happening on his watch.
Barack Obama used to claim that a President actually couldn’t do that much on the ground and he didn’t do much to change things post-Eric Garner’s death. People are laying this at Trump’s door because they don’t like Trump, not because they have a belief that a US President should be quelling inner city violence.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
Clinton's problem was that she couldn't offer them a convincing counter-narrative, combined with the fact that she couldn't get her core supporters to turn out, and that swing voters just didn't like her. But the reality is that the voters who constitute Trump's core are not going to vote Democrat even if Biden wrapped himself in a Confederate flag and got a personal endorsement from Jesus. The Democrats just have to win convincingly among the remaining 70% of the population. So far it looks like they probably will.
I don’t see much about Biden that is dissimilar to Clinton as a candidate. He doesn’t enthuse. He’s not offering anything particularly relevant or exciting. He’s just not Trump. Ok, he’s probably less toxic to a fair few people than Clinton was but, balancing that, I’m sure Clinton probably got a little bit of a boost from being the first potential female President.
Turnout is key in US elections. Trump’s supporters are enthused. Biden’s are “meh” (but the anti-Trumpers are definitely fired up)
Well, there is one fundamental difference between Clinton and Biden: her negatives were off the chart, Biden's are not.
RCP had her as -13 favourable/unfavourable at the time of the 2016 elections. Biden is at -2.
That's a pretty major difference between the candidates.
And on male/female, I feel pretty confident predicting that Biden will get a higher percentage of the female vote than Clinton did.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
I am not sure who thought it would sink his candidacy (I skipped PB yesterday) but if Trump's incessant lying, his promotion of conspiracy theories, his woeful mismanagement of Covid-19, his promotion of untested treatments, his racial views, his comments about women, his incitement of violence, his support for white supremacists, his kow-towing to Putin, his track-record of employing criminal has not sunk his candidacy, I doubt if this latest revelation will make much difference.
The Atlantic had an interesting piece on how Trumpers justify voting for such a repellent human being.
Trump's core supporters are evangelical Christians, frequently with pretty limited education, living in small towns and rural areas, who are utterly bewildered by modern America. They have a deep fear of racial minorities, they believe that the elite doesn't understand them and won't protect them from everything they're afraid of. They have yearned for a strongman figure who speaks in a language they can understand and who tells them that their fears are real. After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Were you part of Hilary Clinton’s campaign team in 2016?
Clinton's problem was that she couldn't offer them a convincing counter-narrative, combined with the fact that she couldn't get her core supporters to turn out, and that swing voters just didn't like her. But the reality is that the voters who constitute Trump's core are not going to vote Democrat even if Biden wrapped himself in a Confederate flag and got a personal endorsement from Jesus. The Democrats just have to win convincingly among the remaining 70% of the population. So far it looks like they probably will.
I don’t see much about Biden that is dissimilar to Clinton as a candidate. He doesn’t enthuse. He’s not offering anything particularly relevant or exciting. He’s just not Trump. Ok, he’s probably less toxic to a fair few people than Clinton was but, balancing that, I’m sure Clinton probably got a little bit of a boost from being the first potential female President.
Turnout is key in US elections. Trump’s supporters are enthused. Biden’s are “meh” (but the anti-Trumpers are definitely fired up)
I agree Biden is not a great candidate, he certainly would not have been my choice. I think he is less toxic than Clinton, however, and that some people who didn't turn out last time because they didn't see Trump as that bad (or thought it unlikely he would win) will now turn out to vote against him. Plus I think some of those who liked his Drain the Swamp rhetoric in 2016 will have been disgusted by his behaviour in office. But I agree with you that his core supporters remain as motivated as before, for the reasons I noted above. The key point is that he can't win on the basis of his core support alone. Incidentally, I am sure that as many people who were motivated to vote for Clinton in 2016 because she was a woman were motivated to vote against her for the same reason - even if it was subconscious.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
Several people said yesterday that it would not sink his candidacy, I don't think it was unanimous enough that it would that it can be called collective. Certainly some thought it would cut through as other things had not in the past, but that is not the same thing.
That’s fair enough and I shouldn’t have been so black and white but there was more than one that suggested this would sink his presidency.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
People do tend to get a bit excited about Trump as the feelings run so high, but I think people pointing to our own 2019 GE may have it right - even if it looks like the case that Biden in this case absolutely will win easily, a lot of people even those who really want it will doubt it because of what happened last time. So I think there'll be a lot more caveating around a Trump loss this time, just in case.
My personal view is this is more like 2017, with Biden as May - a candidate who didn’t generate much enthusiasm and who the polls suggested was on for a big win up against a candidate that was widely mocked. Now, admittedly, Biden is not in charge and Trump is but most of the feeling around Biden tends to be “meh”. I’m sure he will pick up Democrats and those who hate Trump, but a fair few may decide not to turn out.
Trump is like very Corbyn as Corbyn's own team were saying in 2016 . . . but the 2016 Presidential Election was the one like 2017, with Hillary as May.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
The big difference with 2019 is that there was one overriding issue ie Brexit and the whole “let’s get it done” that finally caused many Labour voters to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives (or to the Brexit party, which undercut the Labour vote).
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
A return to normality and getting rid of COVID19, Trump, racial tensions and everything else that is blighting America is probably the theme of this year.
It will be who offers the best route to an economic upturn that is the probably the number one issue for many voters. Some people will also be genuinely scared about what is happening with law and order (see gun sales rocketing).
Absolutely the collapse of law and order in Trump's America is absolutely shocking.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
Law and order is not a Federal issue. No one is blaming the rise in murders in places like Chicago and New York at Trump’s doors.
All good Presidents act Presidential to calm tensions, that you don't think Trump is capable of even attempting that shows just how weak on law and order Trump is. This is happening on his watch.
Barack Obama used to claim that a President actually couldn’t do that much on the ground and he didn’t do much to change things post-Eric Garner’s death. People are laying this at Trump’s door because they don’t like Trump, not because they have a belief that a US President should be quelling inner city violence.
The President can't do that much on the ground but they can do a heck of a lot on the airwaves.
Obama reacted to the Eric Garner killing and the judicial outcome of that with sensitivity and identifying the problem, as did George W Bush who responded well to it too. Obama reacted to the Ferguson unrest by appealing for calm as well as saying that change was needed.
Trump has responded to the unrest by sending armed forces in to beat up peaceful protesters and the media so he could walk to a Church for a photo op and Tweeted "LAW AND ORDER!" Where is Trump being Presidential? Where is Trump appealing for calm? Where is Trump identifying the problems and legitimate concerns of protesters? Where is Trump doing his damn job as President?
He's not up to it. That's why the trouble is escalating on his watch.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
So. For this to race be 50-50, according to these numbers, requires a little bit more than a 2.5% lead for Biden. (As 2-3% is a 47% chance of a Biden win.)
I have said repeatedly, that I think Biden is a 65-70% chance (although probably closer to 70% now), with the value bet being on him winning by a comfortable margin.
Those numbers from Nate bear me out. A 65-70% chance of winning is a little bit more than a 3% lead. Trump currently trails by 7 points, and that gap is very stable.
As we get closer and closer to election day, then if the polls don't move (and so far they haven't moved), then Trump's only chance is that the polls aren't wrong like 2016 (where they were 1% out), but that they'e 3-4 points out.
Now that's possible. But I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
Banking on pollsters - in aggregate, and at the national level - being more than a percent or two out seems like a mugs game. And assuming it's definitely going to go in one direction (Obama outperformed the polls in 2012) is a double mugs game.
Depends which polls, Emerson and Rasmussen already have Biden's national popular vote lead below 5%, Emerson has Biden just 2% ahead
In 2016, Rs understated by 1.1%. 2012, Ds understated by 3.2% 2008, Rs understated by 0.3% 2004, Rs understated by 0.9% 2000, Ds understated by 0.9%
There's not a lot before then, although we could create our own.
In only one case - 2012 - was there a polling error of more than 1.1%.
In 2016 there was also a polling error of more than 1%, though you conveniently set it at 1.1%.
If the error is repeated that would mean Biden has an average poll lead of 6% based on the RCP average, it then only takes a swing of 1 to 2% to Trump in the popular vote and a good Trump debate performance and the EC is almost neck and neck based on Nate Silver's chart
Yes, and that's why I have this election at 70% chance Biden, 30% chance Trump.
In 2019 every pollster had a big Tory lead, there were no polling discrepancies as there are in the US with Trafalgar and Rasmussen for example.
In 2008 even Rasmussen had a big Obama lead so if Biden was heading for a landslide he should have a big lead of 5 to 10% with them too, he doesn't
The last Rasmussen poll at the end of August had Biden up 49-45 (their previous poll had Biden up 46-45).
The one interesting aspect is Rasmussen poll 2500 Likely voters so their MoE is 2% so theoretically it could be a tie or Biden could be up by 6.
Most of the polling sample sizes are much smaller - the Harris poll has 2834 Registered Voters and they have Biden up 46-40 on a 1.8% MoE.
As a counter, the CNN poll has only 997 Likely Voters and an MoE of 4% so the 8-point Biden lead 51-43 could also be a tie (47-47 like Rasmussen) or it could be 55-39 which would be a Biden landslide.
Again, simply taking headline poll numbers and weaponising them to make a political point is grossly misleading.
What is the sample size, what is the methodology, what is the margin of error?
These are the questions we should be asking of EVERY poll.
And Trump could still eke out an EC win, just, even with Biden 4% ahead in the popular vote. A 5% or higher Biden popular vote lead and Biden should win the EC regardless.
So. For this to race be 50-50, according to these numbers, requires a little bit more than a 2.5% lead for Biden. (As 2-3% is a 47% chance of a Biden win.)
I have said repeatedly, that I think Biden is a 65-70% chance (although probably closer to 70% now), with the value bet being on him winning by a comfortable margin.
Those numbers from Nate bear me out. A 65-70% chance of winning is a little bit more than a 3% lead. Trump currently trails by 7 points, and that gap is very stable.
As we get closer and closer to election day, then if the polls don't move (and so far they haven't moved), then Trump's only chance is that the polls aren't wrong like 2016 (where they were 1% out), but that they'e 3-4 points out.
Now that's possible. But I remember in 2012, a poster called Stuart Truth who would rip up every pollster, with some excellent detailed analysis, showing that they all depended on excessive black turnout. And that Romney would win.
Mr Truth made his final appearance on the site the day before polling day, and was never seen again.
Banking on pollsters - in aggregate, and at the national level - being more than a percent or two out seems like a mugs game. And assuming it's definitely going to go in one direction (Obama outperformed the polls in 2012) is a double mugs game.
Depends which polls, Emerson and Rasmussen already have Biden's national popular vote lead below 5%, Emerson has Biden just 2% ahead
In 2016, Rs understated by 1.1%. 2012, Ds understated by 3.2% 2008, Rs understated by 0.3% 2004, Rs understated by 0.9% 2000, Ds understated by 0.9%
There's not a lot before then, although we could create our own.
In only one case - 2012 - was there a polling error of more than 1.1%.
In 2016 there was also a polling error of more than 1%, though you conveniently set it at 1.1%.
If the error is repeated that would mean Biden has an average poll lead of 6% based on the RCP average, it then only takes a swing of 1 to 2% to Trump in the popular vote and a good Trump debate performance and the EC is almost neck and neck based on Nate Silver's chart
Yes, and that's why I have this election at 70% chance Biden, 30% chance Trump.
I'd say 90/10.
As it stands I'd say Trump can't win without the polls changing or a catastrophic polling failure. There could be an October Surprise that moves the polls, but I wouldn't put it at a more than 10% chance.
The UK has blinked every previous time, including Johnson with his "get Brexit done" Withdrawal Agreement
The reason for the aggressive rhetoric is to deflect from mucking up Covid. They aren't interested in negotiating a deal.
Also David Frost comes across as not understanding the first thing about trade. OK, the preposterous Board of Trade with the absurd Marcus Fysh, Daniel Hannan and Tony Abbott is purely an exercise in trolling. But this guy is supposed to actually deliver something.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
The story has made Trump's job a tiny bit harder. The world is rarely full of step functions, and this isn't one. But the path he has to climb - and he has only 58 days left - has got a little steeper.
Let's assume he wins the electoral college if he's 3 points behind or less. And let's assume the the polls overstate Biden's lead by two points.
That means Trump needs to take two points off biden in the next 58 days. Possible, absolutely. But far from certain. And this also relies on the - possibly fallacious assumption - that Trump is understated in the polls.
From a month back admittedly but an interview with ex-DNC Chair Ed Rennell who think, in PA at least, Trump is doing better than the polls:
I think one of Biden’s issues is going to be that he probably doesn’t have the advantage Clinton had over Trump amongst the Latino community (polling has shown Trump is picking up some support) and probably the Black community.
Of all the Midwestern states, I think Trump performs best in Pennsylvania in 2020. I also expect him to outperform in Florida, where the Republicans continue to have both an organisational (and voter registration) edge over the Democrats.
I expect President Trump to underperform in the South and West, in Iowa, and in North Carolina. In the South and West, it's because demographics in places like Arizona are moving against him. (Also, in Arizona, there's a fair amount of anger about the handling of the CV-19 pandemic by the Republican Governor - a man who I generally think very highly of.) In Iowa, it's because the tariff war has disproportionately hit agricultural states. And in North Carolina (and Michigan), I think Biden benefits from increased African American turnout.
But.
It all comes down to the National vote share. Trump really has to be within three points of Biden, and right now he's not. If the polls stay as they are, then I think Trump loses all the Midwestern states, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and possibly Ohio, Florida and Georgia, with a distant (but not ridiculously small) chance of picking up Texas.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
The story has made Trump's job a tiny bit harder. The world is rarely full of step functions, and this isn't one. But the path he has to climb - and he has only 58 days left - has got a little steeper.
Let's assume he wins the electoral college if he's 3 points behind or less. And let's assume the the polls overstate Biden's lead by two points.
That means Trump needs to take two points off biden in the next 58 days. Possible, absolutely. But far from certain. And this also relies on the - possibly fallacious assumption - that Trump is understated in the polls.
From a month back admittedly but an interview with ex-DNC Chair Ed Rennell who think, in PA at least, Trump is doing better than the polls:
I think one of Biden’s issues is going to be that he probably doesn’t have the advantage Clinton had over Trump amongst the Latino community (polling has shown Trump is picking up some support) and probably the Black community.
Of all the Midwestern states, I think Trump performs best in Pennsylvania in 2020. I also expect him to outperform in Florida, where the Republicans continue to have both an organisational (and voter registration) edge over the Democrats.
I expect President Trump to underperform in the South and West, in Iowa, and in North Carolina. In the South and West, it's because demographics in places like Arizona are moving against him. (Also, in Arizona, there's a fair amount of anger about the handling of the CV-19 pandemic by the Republican Governor - a man who I generally think very highly of.) In Iowa, it's because the tariff war has disproportionately hit agricultural states. And in North Carolina (and Michigan), I think Biden benefits from increased African American turnout.
But.
It all comes down to the National vote share. Trump really has to be within three points of Biden, and right now he's not. If the polls stay as they are, then I think Trump loses all the Midwestern states, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and possibly Ohio, Florida and Georgia, with a distant (but not ridiculously small) chance of picking up Texas.
Interesting analysis.
If you were to do a nowcast on Electoral Votes what would it look like?
An interesting thing about the Betfair states market - which is substantially less mad than the national market - is that it seems think there's more uncertainty than 538 which is already assuming quite a lot of uncertainty.
For instance, it gives Biden only a 53% chance of winning Florida (current polling Biden +3% - but a 35% chance in Georgia (current polling Trump +1.5%).
I believe there's some controversy surrounding Mccain's war record.
Here's what is boils down to...
McCain in the Vietnam era:
Volunteered for combat. Got blown up in and injured in the Forrestal fire. Volunteered for combat again. Flew the A4 in Rolling Thunder from the Oriskany. Multiple decorations. Got shot down, fucked up and spent two years in a bamboo cage like Principal Skinner.
Trump in the Vietnam era: Faked a medical deferment. Did quaaludes at Studio 54 in NYC.
So where does PB think we are tonight with the Trump military story?
Yesterday, the collective view seemed to be this would sink his candidacy.
Today, it doesn’t feel like it has gained traction.
I’m guessing the collective answer will be too early to tell...
The story has made Trump's job a tiny bit harder. The world is rarely full of step functions, and this isn't one. But the path he has to climb - and he has only 58 days left - has got a little steeper.
Let's assume he wins the electoral college if he's 3 points behind or less. And let's assume the the polls overstate Biden's lead by two points.
That means Trump needs to take two points off biden in the next 58 days. Possible, absolutely. But far from certain. And this also relies on the - possibly fallacious assumption - that Trump is understated in the polls.
From a month back admittedly but an interview with ex-DNC Chair Ed Rennell who think, in PA at least, Trump is doing better than the polls:
I think one of Biden’s issues is going to be that he probably doesn’t have the advantage Clinton had over Trump amongst the Latino community (polling has shown Trump is picking up some support) and probably the Black community.
Of all the Midwestern states, I think Trump performs best in Pennsylvania in 2020. I also expect him to outperform in Florida, where the Republicans continue to have both an organisational (and voter registration) edge over the Democrats.
I expect President Trump to underperform in the South and West, in Iowa, and in North Carolina. In the South and West, it's because demographics in places like Arizona are moving against him. (Also, in Arizona, there's a fair amount of anger about the handling of the CV-19 pandemic by the Republican Governor - a man who I generally think very highly of.) In Iowa, it's because the tariff war has disproportionately hit agricultural states. And in North Carolina (and Michigan), I think Biden benefits from increased African American turnout.
But.
It all comes down to the National vote share. Trump really has to be within three points of Biden, and right now he's not. If the polls stay as they are, then I think Trump loses all the Midwestern states, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and possibly Ohio, Florida and Georgia, with a distant (but not ridiculously small) chance of picking up Texas.
Interesting analysis.
If you were to do a nowcast on Electoral Votes what would it look like?
Different pollster, the pollster with Trump ahead was also the only pollster who had Trump ahead in Michigan in 2016, Trafalgar Group
Nate Silver's site gives a very low rating to the Trafalgar Group.
Well the election 2016 result gives a very high rating to Trafalgar Group as it was the only pollster who correctly had Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania and without Trump winning those states and Wisconsin Hillary would have won the EC and now be President
We've been through this before, but you do have a tendency to cherry pick.
In 2018, a few days out from the election Trafalgar had McSally (GOP) winning Arizona by 2% (she lost by 2%), Heller (GOP) winning Nevada by 3% (he lost by 5%), Cruz (GOP) winning Texas by 9% (squeaked in by under 2%).
That's cherry picking on my part too, as they had some better ones that night (they called it the right way in Florida, for example, albeit overstating GOP lead). But if you're thinking about the quality of a pollster, you need to look more broadly.
Yes, the pollster with the most extreme effect in the direction of a particular party will sometimes look good by calling wins others don't, but they will also have false alarms. In 2018, you'd have certainly been better listening to other pollsters.
All irrelevant as Trump was not on the ballot in 2018 so many Trump 2016 voters stayed home in 2018.
Not irrelevant at all. A good pollster has a good record in all elections. Your argument is one which tends towards "never mind what my watch says now - it's absolutely perfect twice a day."
No completely irrelevant. You are forgetting the fact that many Trump 2016 voters will not have voted for a Republican candidate for President since Bush Snr in 1988, the last Republican to win Michigan and Pennsylvania, or Reagan in 1984, the last Republican to win Wisconsin (with 1988 effectively Reagan's third term, they switched to Bill Clinton in 1992).
They are in effect white working class Trump Democrats much like the Reagan Democrats of the 1980s, they will only vote for Trump, they will not bother to turn out to vote for other Republicans. Trafalgar were the only pollster to pick them up in 2016
Citation needed. Your are acting like the Dems has a 50 pt lead in those states prior to 2016.
And you still haven't explained why Trump was such a mega draw when the GOP congressional candidates outperformed him in 2016.
No citation needed, Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan since the 1980s. He also got the highest number of votes for any Republican candidate in Pennsylvania since 1988.
GOP congressional candidates performed worse than Trump in 2018, they only did better in 2016 because they got Trump voters voting down ballot for them too after voting for Trump first, those voters did not turn out for them again in 2018 with Trump not on the ballot
In 2018 wasnt the thing that did for the Republicans that the Trumpers did turn out, but that there was a far bigger Democrat turnout than usual?
In 2016 Trump got 62,984,828 votes, in 2018 the Republicans got only 50,861,970 votes, a huge gap of 12 million votes.
By contrast the Democrats got 60,572,245 votes in 2018 so far closer to the 65,853,514 votes Hillary got in 2016 and a small gap of only 5 million votes.
So Trump voters did not turn out in 2018 but Democrats did
Trafalgar got it wrong then.
Yes but Trafalgar always get Michigan right so long as a Trump is on the ballot (sample size =1). It's unfair to expect their secret methods, which have been carefully designed to work better than other pollsters in Michigan when a Trump is on the ballot, to work in other elections.
Comments
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1302355026417942528
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1302355807019950086
If you really do want to volunteer send me a PM and I’ll get you hooked up into The Fore Network which has some of the best pro bono opportunities out there
https://twitter.com/TheAtlantic/status/1301904412982550534?s=19
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/981334?section=politics&keywords=ed-rendell-pennsylvania&year=2020&month=08&date=09&id=981334&oref=www.newsbreak.com
I think one of Biden’s issues is going to be that he probably doesn’t have the advantage Clinton had over Trump amongst the Latino community (polling has shown Trump is picking up some support) and probably the Black community.
Ben and Jerry's, a history of exploiting illegal immigrants.
Not a very major or explosive story. Given Trump's notorious ego, stroking his ego is what government's around the world are doing. Even if they're then laughing at him behind his back.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-macron-boris-johnson-trudeau-nato-laughing-buckingham-palace-a9231881.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
In Europe, liberal conservatism is the dominant form of contemporary conservatism and centre-right politics.
So that settles it I guess.
On your point, perhaps it is the case that liberal conservatives are more likely to have been pro-EU conservatives, I don't know, but inasmuch as we can accept any political ideology as being a genuine thing (that is, not much), it surely is broader than a single issue. Otherwise there'd be a million different liberal conservative factions instead of (I'm guessing) a few.
I haven’t bet so far (apart from with Kinabalu) because I genuinely have no clue how this will turn out. My gut still says Trump will win this but I recognise there is plenty of polling data that contradicts that.
Let's see how they've done, shall we.
In 2016, Rs understated by 1.1%.
2012, Ds understated by 3.2%
2008, Rs understated by 0.3%
2004, Rs understated by 0.9%
2000, Ds understated by 0.9%
There's not a lot before then, although we could create our own.
In only one case - 2012 - was there a polling error of more than 1.1%.
1) an unfortunate unrelated physical reaction which makes it look like Trump said something they guy did not expect but in fact he did
2) Trump cocked up and is either going to look stupid or bully them into now doing it
3) Trump did it intentionally as a power move, which might work, but which will probably really piss them off in any future attempts at relations.
Although if that is how bad he is at covering up his thoughts, then he probably was out negotiated!
I also miss that poster who was around pre 2016 who endlessly ramped up Trump's performance with African Americans. IIRC according to him they secretly liked a strong man figure and were going to vote for Trump in droves.
If the error is repeated that would mean Biden has an average poll lead of 6% based on the RCP average, it then only takes a swing of 1 to 2% to Trump in the popular vote and a good Trump debate performance and the EC is almost neck and neck based on Nate Silver's chart
All governments play this game. Macron has been buttering up Trump to his face too.
Car usage now is back to roughly 100% of what it was pre-pandemic. Given that over 80% of people who travel to work do so by car, the fact that car usage is back at 100% of pre-pandemic usage does indeed support the notion that large numbers have gone back to work.
I think there is a dilemma that some people, especially in the media, are so used to cities and especially London and Manchester that they see quiet trains and think that represents the country.
Apologies in advance to Sunil but this country spends too much time and effort banging on about trains! For over 80% of the workforce the car is the mode of transport, not the train, not that you'd know it listening to the media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_TfdNAXOwE
It will now be vastly easier to find embarrassing overly confident predictions I have made.
Biden isn't remotely like Boris so the analogy ends there. But like in 2019 the media and pundits betting are paying too much attention to what happened last time - and the Democrats this time like the Tories in 2019 are taking nothing for granted.
My personal prediction is its going to be like it was until 10pm last election night. Everyone is going to be talking about how close it is right until the close of polls - then Trump/Corbyn will lose a landslide.
A classic by me.
'Robert Gage, my hairdresser for over ten years, fired me. When I called to make my appointment, at the salon where he’d proudly hung my photo on the wall, I was told by him: ‘It would be embarrassing for everyone to have you here.’
Then in early 2004, I called up my ‘good friend’ Abbey, the manager of the Manhattan Manolo Blahnik shop. (Money was already in short supply, but old habits die hard.)
‘Abbey, I think the situation calls for a pair of mood-lifting shoes,’ I said, trying to emulate an upbeat voice.
‘You’ve got quite enough,’ she replied brusquely and hung up. How poisonous must one be when even the New York vendeuses wish to distance themselves...Was it possible that my husband’s fees [from Hollinger] were exorbitant because of me? He’d assured me they were par for the course in the type of deals he was doing, but I still can’t help thinking that marrying me was a disaster.
..Looking for succour, about a week after Conrad’s forced resignation as Hollinger CEO, I spotted Ghislaine Maxwell at a reception. She had been importuning my friendship before our crash with repeat invites for us to go to the island owned by Jeffrey Epstein — yet to be accused of being a paedophile. Putting on my ‘so good to see you’ face, I headed for her.
She bolted.At the opera, Mercedes Bass [wife of billionaire investor and philanthropist Sid Bass] leaned over the partition between her box and ours before the overture and loudly berated me for not keeping in touch with her. The exchange lasted a minute only, mercifully concluded as the orchestra began. Her box’s occupants rushed out at the opera’s conclusion.
Next day, being a chump from Mars, I took Mercedes at her word and sent her an effusive email. There was no response from Mercedes to that, nor to the following three emails I sent.
Bravely, Jayne Wrightsman [billionaire philanthropist who died in 2019] gave the last supper for us at her home on Fifth Avenue. Jayne would never cease keeping in contact with both of us through letters and telephone calls so long as she was physically able, but she would never again see us in public or invite us to her home.
The final goodbye from TV interviewer Barbara Walters came in December 2005, just after criminal charges were laid. Her email confronted the delicate problem of how to write to people in our situation and I think she did it fairly well. She made an effort where none of the others in the Group did.
With a few extraordinary exceptions, our UK acquaintances carefully retreated. Elton John was one of those exceptions: he took me out to dinner. ‘This is for you,’ he said, presenting me with a quite lovely pavé diamond star and chain from the jeweller Theo Fennell.'
Look at this prediction titan.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/952134/#Comment_952134
Having the outrage of the words themselves, combined with the simple raw emotion of Biden's response . . . it is elegantly pure and simple.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/838025/#Comment_838025
After years of radicalisation many of them have lost contact with the norms of democratic political culture and are ready to vote for a man who is now demonstrably outside the mainstream American political tradition. It looks like there aren't enough of them, however, and that Trump has alienated normal suburban swing voters enough to kill this cancer in November. But one can't be sure.
Though given how much has changed, its good that some things have stayed the same, from that thread . . .
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/838057/#Comment_838057
Fans have flocked to a church in Germany to hear a chord change in a music which lasts for 639 years.
It is the first chord change to As Slow As Possible in seven years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54041568
You don’t really have this in the US this time. Yes, there’s the “I hate Trump” voters but they were there in 2016. Sure, a few more have been added. However, there’s been fairly consistent polling that Trump has eroded the Democrat advantage in the Latino vote and some indications he is starting to erode the lead in the Black vote.
I think there’s also somewhat of a tendency here to think of 2018 and the mid term elections and think there will be a groundswell of voting against Trump. Many of the Democrats who flipped Republican seats expressly did NOT campaign on the issue of Trump and avoided the topic. That suggests they realised it wouldn’t be a vote winner.
Trump's total lack of ability to be Presidential and restore law and order is a major boost to the Biden campaign.
- The UK has blinked every previous time, including Johnson with his "get Brexit done" Withdrawal Agreement
- The reason for the aggressive rhetoric is to deflect from mucking up Covid. They aren't interested in negotiating a deal.
Also David Frost comes across as not understanding the first thing about trade. OK, the preposterous Board of Trade with the absurd Marcus Fysh, Daniel Hannan and Tony Abbott is purely an exercise in trolling. But this guy is supposed to actually deliver something.https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1302322528719904769
If Biden wins it will only be in subsequent days as the remaining mail ballots are counted and processed
Turnout is key in US elections. Trump’s supporters are enthused. Biden’s are “meh” (but the anti-Trumpers are definitely fired up)
RCP had her as -13 favourable/unfavourable at the time of the 2016 elections. Biden is at -2.
That's a pretty major difference between the candidates.
And on male/female, I feel pretty confident predicting that Biden will get a higher percentage of the female vote than Clinton did.
Incidentally, I am sure that as many people who were motivated to vote for Clinton in 2016 because she was a woman were motivated to vote against her for the same reason - even if it was subconscious.
Obama reacted to the Eric Garner killing and the judicial outcome of that with sensitivity and identifying the problem, as did George W Bush who responded well to it too. Obama reacted to the Ferguson unrest by appealing for calm as well as saying that change was needed.
Trump has responded to the unrest by sending armed forces in to beat up peaceful protesters and the media so he could walk to a Church for a photo op and Tweeted "LAW AND ORDER!" Where is Trump being Presidential? Where is Trump appealing for calm? Where is Trump identifying the problems and legitimate concerns of protesters? Where is Trump doing his damn job as President?
He's not up to it. That's why the trouble is escalating on his watch.
As it stands I'd say Trump can't win without the polls changing or a catastrophic polling failure. There could be an October Surprise that moves the polls, but I wouldn't put it at a more than 10% chance.
It says that Robbins/May blinked previously, not that Boris did.
I expect President Trump to underperform in the South and West, in Iowa, and in North Carolina. In the South and West, it's because demographics in places like Arizona are moving against him. (Also, in Arizona, there's a fair amount of anger about the handling of the CV-19 pandemic by the Republican Governor - a man who I generally think very highly of.) In Iowa, it's because the tariff war has disproportionately hit agricultural states. And in North Carolina (and Michigan), I think Biden benefits from increased African American turnout.
But.
It all comes down to the National vote share. Trump really has to be within three points of Biden, and right now he's not. If the polls stay as they are, then I think Trump loses all the Midwestern states, Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and possibly Ohio, Florida and Georgia, with a distant (but not ridiculously small) chance of picking up Texas.
If you were to do a nowcast on Electoral Votes what would it look like?
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1302394190949736448/photo/1
For instance, it gives Biden only a 53% chance of winning Florida (current polling Biden +3% - but a 35% chance in Georgia (current polling Trump +1.5%).
McCain in the Vietnam era:
Volunteered for combat.
Got blown up in and injured in the Forrestal fire.
Volunteered for combat again.
Flew the A4 in Rolling Thunder from the Oriskany.
Multiple decorations.
Got shot down, fucked up and spent two years in a bamboo cage like Principal Skinner.
Trump in the Vietnam era:
Faked a medical deferment.
Did quaaludes at Studio 54 in NYC.
Fuck off with your "controversy".
Why not instead instead back Kamala Harris to become the next POTUS, available on the Betfair Exchange at 130?