Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Polling for Trump v Biden is following almost exactly the same pattern as for the 2018 Midterms – po

245678

Comments

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,212
    edited September 2020

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I would agree that that is a useful starting point in discussing the problem. My concern is that when Judges use human rights to "interpret" laws in a way that they deem consistent with human rights, even if that means doing some violence to what Parliament originally stipulated, what they are doing is deciding what the law should be, not what it is. I am not convinced that rule by judges is what was meant by the rule of law.

    I do think it is the job of the courts to protect the citizen from an over mighty state. I do think equality before the law and fairness of procedure are absolutely essential. I have some considerable reservations about the Miller decision, not because it was the wrong decision in the circumstances but because it set a very powerful precedent that we might come to regret.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited September 2020
    The polling is also not far out from the 2016 polls either eg the 2016 final forecast was Clinton 49% Trump 45% with 538.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    It would also be a huge mistake to compare midterm elections to the presidential election eg Reagan, Clinton and Obama all saw their parties hammered in their first midterms, all were re elected. In the 2010 midterm elections for instance the GOP led the Democrats 52% to 45%, very close to the 53% to 45% margin the Democrats won the 2018 midterms by but Obama was nonetheless re elected in 2012.

    Finally it is an equally large mistake to think that Biden being the candidate who is the 'non President' 'anti Trump' candidate is more beneficial than having a positive vote for the challenger. Kerry in 2004 and Romney in 2012 both went into the election as the anti Bush and anti Obama candidates respectively, both were defeated by the incumbents.

    Candidates who beat incumbent presidents like Bill Clinton in 1992 or Ronald Reagan in 1980 tend to do so with voters voting for them, not just against the incumbent
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,212

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I think much of the issue people have with human rights is their being interpreted to mean something completely different to what was meant when the Charter was signed.

    Do you respect Lord Diplock as a jurist? What do you think of this?

    'the Crown [The Government] has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question, to change its policy, even if this involves breaking an international convention to which it is a party and which has come into force so recently as fifteen days before'.
    I’ve said over and over again that the Government has the sovereign right to break international law. I agree 100% with Lord Diplock.

    However its possible to agree that its within Parliament’s legitimate power to do so, yet still think it’s the wrong thing to do.
    Exactly.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/sep/15/renters-fleeing-inner-london-in-race-for-space-data-suggests

    Analysis of 60m searches in August showed steep falls in the number of searches for rental homes in commuter hubs such as Earl’s Court in west London, and New Cross in the south, while areas in outer London and beyond registered big increases.

    The UK’s top rental hotspot was Chessington in Kingston upon Thames, which is 16 miles outside central London and home to the World of Adventures theme park. Rightmove said searches for lettings in the town were up by 99% on August 2019’s figure.


    Hardly surprising, but interesting to see some figures on what's happening.
  • Options
    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me
  • Options

    RobD said:

    Young people overwhelmingly losing their jobs and so at a difficult time perhaps more responsible language from the press is needed than just blaming them for everything.

    I don't think young people are overwhelmingly losing their jobs. Rather, of those losing their jobs, they are overwhelmingly young. Surprising it was only 18-24 that was down, 24-65 were all up in July.
    The resilience of the economy and the jobs market is surprisingly good.
    I will be interested to see the results come October.
    From my own experience a couple of lads have left us as they got offered more money elsewhere. I offered a job to a 16 year old apprentice last week and he turned it down as he had already accepted another offer of employment. These type of things don't tend to happen in a weak jobs market.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    Some interesting triumphant guff on here last night. Of course the second reading would pass - the interesting big is the committee stage and then how the government proposes to get it past the House of Lords. Minimal chance of this becoming law in time for them to make use of it.

    Nor do they need to pass a law allowing them to break the law in a limited and very specific way. Just do whatever they want how they want and have Philip/HYUFD/BluestBlue et al say yebbut they have a majority or whatever. Nor does the measure in question have to have anything to do with what they say it is - Shagger drooled on about GB to NI whilst promoting a bill that explicitly didn't cover that.

    So a nice convention they are trying to set. Police arrested you and kept you locked up without charge for 3 weeks? Its cos the EU are trying to remove the common arrest warrant. A minister accidentally sits next to a developer at a £3k a plate party dinner and accidentally saves the developer millions? Its because the EU are trying to stop us fishing or something. And so on.

    Its definitely not a concern that Her Majesty's Government no longer understands the laws it passes only months before, sees no need to obey the law, and is happy to say black is white. Absolutely no reason for anyone - especially alleged conservatives - to consider the impact that a lying lawless government of the present or the future could have upon their lives citing this precedent. No concern at all...

    Oh but they do. Pb Tories have all condemned Boris's behaviour, even if only when carried out by President Trump.
    PB Tories have - but they oppose this government. I am speaking about people who claim to be Tories but are explicitly not Conservatives: BluestBlue, Philip, HYUFD.
    Conservatism is not liberalism, even if it is not socialism either
  • Options
    Mine is on Trump because
    1. He has a wired base who will vote in large numbers, Biden's are asleep
    2. People are shy with the pollsters if not lying
    3. Biden is clearly suffering from age related issues which will be exposed in the debates
    4. The rioting is helping Trump as people are scared of rioters
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    edited September 2020
    DavidL said:

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I would agree that that is a useful starting point in discussing the problem. My concern is that when Judges use human rights to "interpret" laws in a way that they deem consistent with human rights, even if that means doing some violence to what Parliament originally stipulated, what they are doing is deciding what the law should be, not what it is. I am not convinced that rule by judges is what was meant by the rule of law.

    I do think it is the job of the courts to protect the citizen from an over mighty state. I do think equality before the law and fairness of procedure are absolutely essential. I have some considerable reservations about the Miller decision, not because it was the wrong decision in the circumstances but because it set a very powerful precedent that we might come to regret.
    But David the Human Rights Act requires them to interpret laws in compliance with human rights. Isn’t that one of the main functions of the act? Change the law by all means (although obviously I disagree with the proposed change) but I don’t believe it’s the fault of the judges. They are just doing their jobs, no?

    Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 - Interpretation of legislation.

    (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

    (2) This section—

    (a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

    (b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

    (c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    I agree though I would have Cooper replace Nandy as Shadow Foreign Secretary, Thomas Symonds as Shadow Home Secretary is the only heavyweight in Starmer's current top team
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,972

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    TBH, I think the last clause of your first sentence hits the nail on the head. This isn't a Government that accepts responsibility, except when things are clearly working out. Otherwise it's someone else's fault.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I would agree that that is a useful starting point in discussing the problem. My concern is that when Judges use human rights to "interpret" laws in a way that they deem consistent with human rights, even if that means doing some violence to what Parliament originally stipulated, what they are doing is deciding what the law should be, not what it is. I am not convinced that rule by judges is what was meant by the rule of law.
    So you're not a fan of common law?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,972
    HYUFD said:
    'Twould be useful if there was a comparison with the last time a poll was taken, or with the result in 2016.
    Without your reader having to go through the tedium of looking it up.
    Sorry if that seems rude.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    Mine is on Trump because
    1. He has a wired base who will vote in large numbers, Biden's are asleep
    2. People are shy with the pollsters if not lying
    3. Biden is clearly suffering from age related issues which will be exposed in the debates
    4. The rioting is helping Trump as people are scared of rioters

    Ah yes, If you don't like what the polls are reporting, they must be wrong.

    The polls are just as likely to be wrong in the other direction.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,972
    I have been tedious and looked up N Carolina and Wisconsin's results in 2016. Trump is just of half as far ahead as he was in the former, but very much further behind in Wisconsin, which he just won.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    HYUFD said:
    'Twould be useful if there was a comparison with the last time a poll was taken, or with the result in 2016.
    Without your reader having to go through the tedium of looking it up.
    Sorry if that seems rude.
    There is a thing called google if you wish to do that
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.
    Kids having an impromptu kickabout in the park after school are only breaking the law in a limited and very specific way to protect GB to NI food exports.
    Kids are going to be taking advantage of the nice weather to release a bit of tension after being stuck indoors all day. They will be knocking the ball about with kids from their bubble anyway, and what could be better than a bit of exercise and fresh air - do we want a generation of obese kids bent over their devices? I would hope that they would be left alone to enjoy themselves rather than grassed up by some over officious killjoys. Especially since the government has bent over backwards to accommodate the murderous pastimes of the donor classes.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    edited September 2020
    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    By tiny margins though, and Biden is undoubtedly more popular in the Rust Belt than Clinton.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561

    DavidL said:

    It's funny that Johnson decided to open yesterday's debate when he heard that Starmer would not be around to respond, but ended up being roasted by Miliband instead. It's nice to see a cowardly bully being humiliated, even if it meant very little in the grand scheme of things.

    I think it was the other way around. I think Boris was desperate to have Starmer talk about Brexit again (something he has gone to enormous lengths not to do) and it blew up in his face.
    Starmer's dentist appointment isolation was very conveniently timed.
    I hope you’re joking but I recall outrage (which was correct) when people suggested Johnson had made up having COVID-19.
    I am indeed joking. I should hope the difference is not just that they were not joking but that Starmer isn't sick or showing any symptoms himself and I hope it stays that way. I wouldn't wish illness on anyone or mock anyone who is ill.
    Even Saddam Hussein or Fred West?

    Most people are valuable, but if those two had died earlier than they did, the world might be a better place.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    edited September 2020
    Talk about stating the obvious. New starts, training, and team building undoubtedly suffers when everything is done 100% remotely.

    It also highlights bad managers as I’ve previously talked about.
  • Options
    OK, I made a "everybody made up their minds in 2018, why are they even bothering to vote again" map:

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/7wez9
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983

    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    By tiny margins though, and Biden is undoubtedly more popular in the Rust Belt than Clinton.
    Yes I think of the Democratic candidates this year Biden had the best chance of beating Trump for that reason, however I remain of the view Trump can narrowly win re election even if it will be closer than 2016
  • Options
    Perhaps we need mask wearing in offices? ;)
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Mine is on Trump because
    1. He has a wired base who will vote in large numbers, Biden's are asleep
    2. People are shy with the pollsters if not lying
    3. Biden is clearly suffering from age related issues which will be exposed in the debates
    4. The rioting is helping Trump as people are scared of rioters

    He got a lessor percentage of the votes than Romney.
    Okay, if you want to reject the only empirical source of data we have that is your perogative
    So is Trump
    There is zero evidence of the riots helping Trump, Biden comfortably out polls Trump's on solving the rioting issue but you have already rejected polling so cool.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    Alistair said:

    Mine is on Trump because
    1. He has a wired base who will vote in large numbers, Biden's are asleep
    2. People are shy with the pollsters if not lying
    3. Biden is clearly suffering from age related issues which will be exposed in the debates
    4. The rioting is helping Trump as people are scared of rioters

    He got a lessor percentage of the votes than Romney.
    Okay, if you want to reject the only empirical source of data we have that is your perogative
    So is Trump
    There is zero evidence of the riots helping Trump, Biden comfortably out polls Trump's on solving the rioting issue but you have already rejected polling so cool.
    Trump leads on the economy now though Biden narrowly leads on law and order and policing


    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1305357095626313731?s=20


    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1305355486573846531?s=20
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,617

    Mine is on Trump because
    1. He has a wired base who will vote in large numbers, Biden's are asleep
    2. People are shy with the pollsters if not lying
    3. Biden is clearly suffering from age related issues which will be exposed in the debates
    4. The rioting is helping Trump as people are scared of rioters

    As none of us knows you may well be right, but what evidence are you using for this. Let's look at your statements one by one:

    1) The first part is probably true, but that does not enable him to win alone. What is your evidence on the 2nd part of that sentence?

    2) Evidence? On the face of it it contradicts your point 1), although they could be two distinct groups of voters. But evidence?

    3) This is a worry, but is it not also true for Trump. Most of the time he is incoherent, what is more he regularly comes out with absolutely loony statements and he can't walk off stage as he has done when cornered in a press conference. I think either could crash and burn and Biden has come through the primaries.

    4) This is also a worry and clearly a tactic Trump is using, but again the evidence from polling shows that not to be the case (so far)
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,985
    Fishing said:



    Even Saddam Hussein or Fred West?

    Ironically Johnson is a combination of the least savoury elements of both of those.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    A big difference here might be that Dems did not think the two states were in play at all till the very end, which is not the case this year.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    HYUFD said:

    The polling is also not far out from the 2016 polls either eg the 2016 final forecast was Clinton 49% Trump 45% with 538.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    It would also be a huge mistake to compare midterm elections to the presidential election eg Reagan, Clinton and Obama all saw their parties hammered in their first midterms, all were re elected. In the 2010 midterm elections for instance the GOP led the Democrats 52% to 45%, very close to the 53% to 45% margin the Democrats won the 2018 midterms by but Obama was nonetheless re elected in 2012.

    Finally it is an equally large mistake to think that Biden being the candidate who is the 'non President' 'anti Trump' candidate is more beneficial than having a positive vote for the challenger. Kerry in 2004 and Romney in 2012 both went into the election as the anti Bush and anti Obama candidates respectively, both were defeated by the incumbents.

    Candidates who beat incumbent presidents like Bill Clinton in 1992 or Ronald Reagan in 1980 tend to do so with voters voting for them, not just against the incumbent

    I agree up to a point on comparing mid-terms with WH elections. There is one caveat though, that the turnout for the 2018 mid-terms was surprisingly high. The bias in the Mid-term results probably comes from the "sample" not being representative of the WH voters. If there is a high turnout then this suggests the 2018 sample is closer to the mix of 2020 voters than say 2002 was compared to the 2004 voters.

    In terms of the "I'm not Trump" argument, you make good points about Kerry and Romney, but they were both fairly weak candidates. Biden has more positives for the national electorate, was seen as a popular VP. He is the same race as trump and the same sex as trump, but importantly is polling very well with woment voters and ethnic minority voters. In short, in the comparison with Romney, Kerry, W. Clinton and Reagan, Biden sits in the middle.
  • Options

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    You need to be in a truss, and get a few patels on the head to knock some sense into you. You really are not the full shilling.
    You preferred when Grayling, Leadsom and Liam Fox were in the Cabinet?

    Funny I don't seem to recall you singing their praises at the time.
    They were just dumb, latest lot are dumb crooks
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,617

    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    A big difference here might be that Dems did not think the two states were in play at all till the very end, which is not the case this year.
    Welcome. Don't think I have ever 'liked' someone's first post before. Many more to come I hope.
  • Options

    OK, I made a "everybody made up their minds in 2018, why are they even bothering to vote again" map:

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/7wez9

    That looks really plausible to me. Not too optimistic for the Democrats, but still a comfortable win. If Florida switches blue as well, it would be more than comfortable.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    The polling is also not far out from the 2016 polls either eg the 2016 final forecast was Clinton 49% Trump 45% with 538.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    It would also be a huge mistake to compare midterm elections to the presidential election eg Reagan, Clinton and Obama all saw their parties hammered in their first midterms, all were re elected. In the 2010 midterm elections for instance the GOP led the Democrats 52% to 45%, very close to the 53% to 45% margin the Democrats won the 2018 midterms by but Obama was nonetheless re elected in 2012.

    Finally it is an equally large mistake to think that Biden being the candidate who is the 'non President' 'anti Trump' candidate is more beneficial than having a positive vote for the challenger. Kerry in 2004 and Romney in 2012 both went into the election as the anti Bush and anti Obama candidates respectively, both were defeated by the incumbents.

    Candidates who beat incumbent presidents like Bill Clinton in 1992 or Ronald Reagan in 1980 tend to do so with voters voting for them, not just against the incumbent

    I agree up to a point on comparing mid-terms with WH elections. There is one caveat though, that the turnout for the 2018 mid-terms was surprisingly high. The bias in the Mid-term results probably comes from the "sample" not being representative of the WH voters. If there is a high turnout then this suggests the 2018 sample is closer to the mix of 2020 voters than say 2002 was compared to the 2004 voters.

    In terms of the "I'm not Trump" argument, you make good points about Kerry and Romney, but they were both fairly weak candidates. Biden has more positives for the national electorate, was seen as a popular VP. He is the same race as trump and the same sex as trump, but importantly is polling very well with woment voters and ethnic minority voters. In short, in the comparison with Romney, Kerry, W. Clinton and Reagan, Biden sits in the middle.
    Which is why I think it will still be a very close election result
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    edited September 2020
    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    Do you think the pollsters want to repeat their poor results in those states? As these two states have now been thrown into the limelight, it is reasonable to assume the polling companies are putting more effort into getting the sampling and weighting right.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Anecdote time:

    Last night my pub correspondent (AKA, my dad) reported that the pub was dead last night. He reckons people have been scared off.

    My school correspondent (AKA, my sister) reports this morning that her daughter's primary school has changed the start time. Her first day of school yesterday started at 09:15 as part of a staggered start. That last one day after the parents complained, so now they're all starting at 09:00 and there's no social distancing outside the school whatsoever.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,212

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I would agree that that is a useful starting point in discussing the problem. My concern is that when Judges use human rights to "interpret" laws in a way that they deem consistent with human rights, even if that means doing some violence to what Parliament originally stipulated, what they are doing is deciding what the law should be, not what it is. I am not convinced that rule by judges is what was meant by the rule of law.

    I do think it is the job of the courts to protect the citizen from an over mighty state. I do think equality before the law and fairness of procedure are absolutely essential. I have some considerable reservations about the Miller decision, not because it was the wrong decision in the circumstances but because it set a very powerful precedent that we might come to regret.
    But David the Human Rights Act requires them to interpret laws in compliance with human rights. Isn’t that one of the main functions of the act? Change the law by all means (although obviously I disagree with the proposed change) but I don’t believe it’s the fault of the judges. They are just doing their jobs, no?

    Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 - Interpretation of legislation.

    (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

    (2) This section—

    (a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

    (b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

    (c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.
    Yes I know, that's what I have reservations about. The price is legal certainty and democratic accountability. The upside is that laws are interpreted in ways that are "fairer", especially in relation to article 6. That has had some good results, I concede that. The overall balance, however, is more mixed.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    Anecdote time:

    Last night my pub correspondent (AKA, my dad) reported that the pub was dead last night. He reckons people have been scared off.

    My school correspondent (AKA, my sister) reports this morning that her daughter's primary school has changed the start time. Her first day of school yesterday started at 09:15 as part of a staggered start. That last one day after the parents complained, so now they're all starting at 09:00 and there's no social distancing outside the school whatsoever.

    When your children have a combined "bubble" of over 500 kids it's hard to take social distancing seriously at drop off.
  • Options

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
    Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.

    I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
    He needs some sort of black swan event that drives voters away from Biden.

    Traditionally both candidates improve on their polling share from here. With Biden's very high share he is recording I would put it at very odds on that he will win an absolute majority of the popular vote, rather than just a plurality. Very hard for Trump to overcome that.
    Yes, one of the features of polling to date is the low number of undecideds so I don't see things changing much from here. Biden's lead in the popular vote should see him home, but probably not by a lot.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    edited September 2020
    Note the opposite bank holiday effect this week. The total for the last two weeks was 652 below the five year average - so I think we can conclude the spike was due to the heatwave.

    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1305786433383342081
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    By tiny margins though, and Biden is undoubtedly more popular in the Rust Belt than Clinton.
    Yes I think of the Democratic candidates this year Biden had the best chance of beating Trump for that reason, however I remain of the view Trump can narrowly win re election even if it will be closer than 2016
    Regardless of the specifics of this race, when somebody wins by less than 1% in key states, it seems weird to say you think they'll win again, but it'll be even closer. A race like this doesn't allow for the kind of precision to think the dart will land in that particular spot. If you think it's going to be tighter you're really looking at a 50/50 shot.

    I think we see people here make predictions like this (odds-against thing will happen, but only by a miniscule margin) when they want something to happen, but they don't want to look too stupid if it doesn't.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078
    edited September 2020
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    @DavidL by action of Blair’s Human Rights Act 1998, for judges law and human rights are one and the same.

    I would agree that that is a useful starting point in discussing the problem. My concern is that when Judges use human rights to "interpret" laws in a way that they deem consistent with human rights, even if that means doing some violence to what Parliament originally stipulated, what they are doing is deciding what the law should be, not what it is. I am not convinced that rule by judges is what was meant by the rule of law.

    I do think it is the job of the courts to protect the citizen from an over mighty state. I do think equality before the law and fairness of procedure are absolutely essential. I have some considerable reservations about the Miller decision, not because it was the wrong decision in the circumstances but because it set a very powerful precedent that we might come to regret.
    But David the Human Rights Act requires them to interpret laws in compliance with human rights. Isn’t that one of the main functions of the act? Change the law by all means (although obviously I disagree with the proposed change) but I don’t believe it’s the fault of the judges. They are just doing their jobs, no?

    Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998 - Interpretation of legislation.

    (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

    (2) This section—

    (a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;

    (b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and

    (c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.
    Yes I know, that's what I have reservations about. The price is legal certainty and democratic accountability. The upside is that laws are interpreted in ways that are "fairer", especially in relation to article 6. That has had some good results, I concede that. The overall balance, however, is more mixed.
    Why shouldn’t Parliament be explicit if they want to deviate from the European Convention on Human Rights (drafted by the British I may add)? There is nothing stopping them from doing so.

    Isn’t the whole point of Blair’s human rights settlement that if a Government wants to deviate from the Convention rights, they should be explicit that they are doing so, and thus face any political ramifications.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.

    And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
  • Options
    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.
  • Options
    In 2016 we were on a cruise ship with a bunch of Americans on Election Day. The arguments we heard repeatedly from GOP voters were that (1) the Clintons were crooks and their Foundation was thoroughly corrupt and (2) the Obamacare Individual Mandate and associated tax penalties was costing them $000s and had to go... neither apply this time around. The other factor in play... observing from this side of the Atlantic, the Dem GOTV machine has only got stronger since 2018.

    Personal note... formerly posted as @Rexel56 but Vanilla seems to have lost my password so have reregistered using my actual name, will see whether this constrains future posting...
  • Options

    OK, I made a "everybody made up their minds in 2018, why are they even bothering to vote again" map:

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/7wez9

    That looks really plausible to me. Not too optimistic for the Democrats, but still a comfortable win. If Florida switches blue as well, it would be more than comfortable.
    Yes, that map plus FL would probably be my modal outcome, with NC for Biden too perhaps. On the other hand, if you flip, say, IA, PA and MN it's easy to see how Trump can eke out a narrow win. Still all to play for.
  • Options

    OK, I made a "everybody made up their minds in 2018, why are they even bothering to vote again" map:

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/7wez9

    That looks really plausible to me. Not too optimistic for the Democrats, but still a comfortable win. If Florida switches blue as well, it would be more than comfortable.
    Not sure about Biden winning Iowa but otherwise that looks like a damn good shot to me.
  • Options

    tlg86 said:

    Anecdote time:

    Last night my pub correspondent (AKA, my dad) reported that the pub was dead last night. He reckons people have been scared off.

    My school correspondent (AKA, my sister) reports this morning that her daughter's primary school has changed the start time. Her first day of school yesterday started at 09:15 as part of a staggered start. That last one day after the parents complained, so now they're all starting at 09:00 and there's no social distancing outside the school whatsoever.

    When your children have a combined "bubble" of over 500 kids it's hard to take social distancing seriously at drop off.
    Just make sure that some parents are carrying shotguns. The ones without guns are spotters.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,078

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.

    And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
    Whilst that may be true, it’s on the Government to make sure Brexit is a “success”. The public merely expressed a desire for us to leave an international organisation.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,915

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.

    And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
    2014 Euro Elections, 2015 GE, 2016 Referendum, 2017 GE, Euro elections, 2019 GE

    Lots of different types of voting systems, all won by those in favour of a referendum or in favour of leaving
  • Options

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.

    And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
    Indeed. A democratic mandate to pass the Withdrawal Agreement and Get Brexit Done. Now that we have left the EU the government want to tear up that democratic mandate for the WA. Happily we have the House of Lords to uphold our democracy and block this bill to death.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,983
    edited September 2020

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
    Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.

    I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
    He needs some sort of black swan event that drives voters away from Biden.

    Traditionally both candidates improve on their polling share from here. With Biden's very high share he is recording I would put it at very odds on that he will win an absolute majority of the popular vote, rather than just a plurality. Very hard for Trump to overcome that.
    Yes, one of the features of polling to date is the low number of undecideds so I don't see things changing much from here. Biden's lead in the popular vote should see him home, but probably not by a lot.
    The latest Fox poll has it Biden 51% Trump 46% and 2% Don't Know.

    https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/09/Fox_September-7-10-2020_Complete_National_Topline_September-13-Release.pdf

    If those Don't Knows go to Trump then it would only be a 3% Biden popular vote lead, a margin on which Trump could still win the EC even if more narrowly than 2016 when Hillary won the popular vote by 2%.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,477
    edited September 2020

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
  • Options
    nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    tlg86 said:

    Anecdote time:

    Last night my pub correspondent (AKA, my dad) reported that the pub was dead last night. He reckons people have been scared off.

    My school correspondent (AKA, my sister) reports this morning that her daughter's primary school has changed the start time. Her first day of school yesterday started at 09:15 as part of a staggered start. That last one day after the parents complained, so now they're all starting at 09:00 and there's no social distancing outside the school whatsoever.

    Aren’t pubs always quiet on Monday night, especially if you’ve been pre rule of six pArtying?
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,940
    isam said:
    Perhaps the Rule of Six is to stop people catching the flu?
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    edited September 2020
    On the US election, I've been looking for a safety bet that will come in, even if Trump does a bit better than expected. I think I've found it.

    Lay Republicans to win 30 or more states @3.65 on betfair.
    Trump won 30 exactly last time.

    He could certainly win the election with fewer than 30.

    But state polling would have to be off this time in a wide variety of states for him to keep all the ones from last time.

    In a sense, it's a reverse accumulator bet on Trump winning AZ, FL, TX, NC, GA, MI, OH, WI & PA. And it yields a 27% return. DYOR (or preferably correct mine if it's wrong!).
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,956
    MattW said:

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
    How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
  • Options
    This is reasonable and could easily have been the way the legislation was framed. That makes it significant the government chose not to do it in such a way. If we end up there, though, it's better than what we are now faced with. But it will happen with so much damage already done ...
    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/09/the-changes-that-cox-wants-from-the-government-to-the-uk-internal-market-bill.html
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,940

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.
    Kids having an impromptu kickabout in the park after school are only breaking the law in a limited and very specific way to protect GB to NI food exports.
    Kids are going to be taking advantage of the nice weather to release a bit of tension after being stuck indoors all day. They will be knocking the ball about with kids from their bubble anyway, and what could be better than a bit of exercise and fresh air - do we want a generation of obese kids bent over their devices? I would hope that they would be left alone to enjoy themselves rather than grassed up by some over officious killjoys. Especially since the government has bent over backwards to accommodate the murderous pastimes of the donor classes.
    As long as one them sketches out a team sheet on the back of their exercise book, it will count as an organised sport and thus be perfectly legal.
  • Options
    MattW said:

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
    Because there is no space for them to do so, and there is nobody to organise any kind of queueing system to facilitate it in the tiny space available, would be the answer in the case of the primary school my youngest attends. You probably have 200-300 parents turning up to collect kids, the school gates open directly onto a road with a narrow pavement, and a large secondary school is letting out hundreds of kids next door at the same time. It is total bedlam and social distancing is just impossible.
    The reality is, anyway, that as soon as this disease starts circulating seriously again, either they will close schools or most parents will get it anyway, regardless of whether they stop for a quick blether by the school gates.
  • Options

    isam said:
    Perhaps the Rule of Six is to stop people catching the flu?
    Just 78 Covid deaths, representing 1% of all deaths and against 693 for flu/influenza.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100

    So either this is all bluster for the inevitable capitulation by Boris Johnson (which has happened every time before, including when he signed the deal he now hates), or the Government has accepted No Deal and is trying to blame anyone else but themselves.

    At the end of the day, UK Gov chose to leave the EU. It's really on them, I never supported this line of action, can't blame me

    At the end of the day - that day being Thursday June 23rd, 2016 - the UK voters chose to leave the EU. It's really on them.

    And as recently as last December, they gave the PM an 80 seat majority to do just that. That you did not vote for either does not invalidate its democratic mandate.
    Indeed. A democratic mandate to pass the Withdrawal Agreement and Get Brexit Done. Now that we have left the EU the government want to tear up that democratic mandate for the WA. Happily we have the House of Lords to uphold our democracy and block this bill to death.
    If the House of Lords want to block, plenty of us will volunteer to be a Peer for a Year to prevent that blockade.
  • Options
    Only Labour is trying to hold Johnson to his promises, he got a majority to deliver the WA.
  • Options
    AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,940
    We'll end up with a hybrid system – a few days a week at home and a few in the office. When we are together in the office, there will be an implicit function to collaborate and socialise.

    Managed well, it will be the best of both worlds.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    On topic, and emphasising Mike's point, Biden's favourability ratings are much, much higher than Clinton's, pretty much 10% higher: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-favorability-ratings-2020-vs-2016/

    The inability to demonise Biden in the way that he did Clinton is a real problem for Trump. His base really need a bit of hate, a bit of fear, a lot of motivation. Sleepy Joe is just not threatening.

    A problem Trump faces is that new books and revelations keep on coming out and he can't get the agenda moved to focusing on Biden.
    Biden is just not that interesting although I suspect we will hear more about his son before this is over. Trump is very interesting, and not in a good way.

    I am not sure how Trump turns this around. Even Biden being incoherent has been discounted because, let's face it, he always has been. Voter suppression will help but he needs more. A vaccine break through? Maybe, but time is short.
    He needs some sort of black swan event that drives voters away from Biden.

    Traditionally both candidates improve on their polling share from here. With Biden's very high share he is recording I would put it at very odds on that he will win an absolute majority of the popular vote, rather than just a plurality. Very hard for Trump to overcome that.
    Yes, one of the features of polling to date is the low number of undecideds so I don't see things changing much from here. Biden's lead in the popular vote should see him home, but probably not by a lot.
    The latest Fox poll has it Biden 51% Trump 46% and 2% Don't Know.

    https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/09/Fox_September-7-10-2020_Complete_National_Topline_September-13-Release.pdf

    If those Don't Knows go to Trump then it would only be a 3% Biden popular vote lead, a margin on which Trump could still win the EC even if more narrowly than 2016 when Hillary won the popular vote by 2%.
    Lol, yes that's true but you are making 'HYUFD Election Soup'....

    'First, take a favorable poll (Fox will do nicely, but others are available), then add your Don't Knows to the Trump side (make sure none of them spill into the other camp), then take a Poll Forecast which allows a Trump win as possible outcome (doesn't have to be certain, possible will do) and hey presto! You've got the perfect result!'

    Sorry H, but you're bending over so far backwards you've fallen over.

    Anyway I gotta go do some gardening. Enjoy this fine day. And thanks for making me chuckle.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    nichomar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Anecdote time:

    Last night my pub correspondent (AKA, my dad) reported that the pub was dead last night. He reckons people have been scared off.

    My school correspondent (AKA, my sister) reports this morning that her daughter's primary school has changed the start time. Her first day of school yesterday started at 09:15 as part of a staggered start. That last one day after the parents complained, so now they're all starting at 09:00 and there's no social distancing outside the school whatsoever.

    Aren’t pubs always quiet on Monday night, especially if you’ve been pre rule of six pArtying?
    True, though he was there last Friday and it was noticeably quieter than previously (perhaps end of Summer and not post-pay day).
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,190
    edited September 2020
    MattW said:

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
    1. The parents in question aren't very bright
    2. People are bored of the virus / think its gone / don't care
    3. There isn't space for them to spread out into. There was - in the school playground where they used to collect. But Gavin Twatface told the schools don't do that, so they can't
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,182
    rkrkrk said:

    On the US election, I've been looking for a safety bet that will come in, even if Trump does a bit better than expected. I think I've found it.

    Lay Republicans to win 30 or more states @3.65 on betfair.
    Trump won 30 exactly last time.

    He could certainly win the election with fewer than 30.

    But state polling would have to be off this time in a wide variety of states for him to keep all the ones from last time.

    In a sense, it's a reverse accumulator bet on Trump winning AZ, FL, TX, NC, GA, MI, OH, WI & PA. And it yields a 27% return. DYOR (or preferably correct mine if it's wrong!).

    Laying him to win the PV is worth considering. It's too short imo.
  • Options

    We'll end up with a hybrid system – a few days a week at home and a few in the office. When we are together in the office, there will be an implicit function to collaborate and socialise.

    Managed well, it will be the best of both worlds.
    I'm already referring to it as "flexible working" rather than "work from home". The latter harks back to (the first?) lockdown where you could not go out. The former is that companies and employees have seen the huge mutual benefits in being flexible, so only go in as required as opposed to every day.

    I don't have anything in quick and easy for lunch today. If there was a local cafe, I'd be there...
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    We'll end up with a hybrid system – a few days a week at home and a few in the office. When we are together in the office, there will be an implicit function to collaborate and socialise.

    Managed well, it will be the best of both worlds.
    This is what some people have been doing for well over 20 years.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961

    MattW said:

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
    1. The parents in question aren't very bright
    2. People are bored of the virus / think its gone / don't care
    3. There isn't space for them to spread out into. There was - in the school playground where they used to collect. But Gavin Twatface told the schools don't do that, so they can't
    Is it really necessary to use offensive names like that?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,502

    OK, I made a "everybody made up their minds in 2018, why are they even bothering to vote again" map:

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/7wez9

    That looks really plausible to me. Not too optimistic for the Democrats, but still a comfortable win. If Florida switches blue as well, it would be more than comfortable.
    Yes, that map plus FL would probably be my modal outcome, with NC for Biden too perhaps. On the other hand, if you flip, say, IA, PA and MN it's easy to see how Trump can eke out a narrow win. Still all to play for.
    This is just a quick attempt, but something like this, which shows states leaning Rep/Dem or tossup is possibly more useful in thinking about outcomes.
    I've shaded it on the generous side towards Trump:
    https://www.270towin.com/maps/ZoRZe
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    Do you think the pollsters want to repeat their poor results in those states? As these two states have now been thrown into the limelight, it is reasonable to assume the polling companies are putting more effort into getting the sampling and weighting right.
    RCP had an article on this, at least for the Midwest. They found the short answer - at least for 2018 - was no and that the state polls generally underscored the GOP performance.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    edited September 2020

    Only Labour is trying to hold Johnson to his promises, he got a majority to deliver the WA.

    Lab need to be careful IMO

    They are being portrayed as on the EU side rather than ours by the Truth Twisters

    BREXIT or rather remain is a poisonous issue for Lab
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    From previous thread:

    I don't know how important the rest of the shadow cabinet is, but undoubtedly Starmer could do better with the top tier positions. I'm sure Dodds knows her stuff, but she hasn't developed as a politician. Miliband as Shadow Chancellor and Cooper as Shadow Home Sec would give a bit of political gravitas to Starmer's team.

    Of course, they might also show up their leader as being a bit dull.

    Many people thought Attlee was dull. But.
    Maybe he is 'dull' after a leader who is charismatic but who, if he told you the sun was shining, would cause you to look out the window to check and who thinks honesty is a flower, not a virtue, (if he ever gives 'honesty' a thought) he might be what the public wants.
    Oh I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. But I'm wondering why Starmer surrounded himself with non-entities and thinking that he's insecure.
    Bit like Boris, then.
    But hopefully not incompetent.
    You think Sunak is a non-entity?
    Remember he only got the job because he was willing to be minded by Cummings’s people in a way that Javid was not. Sunak has yet to be tested as a grown up politician; all we can say so far is that he brought a degree of intelligence to bear on the mechanics of furlough and the rest. That a spark of intelligence is worthy of comment is a reflection on the abject dearth of ability among the rest of them.
    There isn't a dearth of talent.

    Truss has done a great job and is miles better than her predecessor.
    Patel is much better than the occupant of that office under Cameron.
    Those examples are even less convincing than your trolling.
    Car crash interview with Patel own BBC this morning. Sounded to me as though she only answered one question, to the effect that if she saw people breaking the rule of six should would report them.
    Kids having an impromptu kickabout in the park after school are only breaking the law in a limited and very specific way to protect GB to NI food exports.
    Kids are going to be taking advantage of the nice weather to release a bit of tension after being stuck indoors all day. They will be knocking the ball about with kids from their bubble anyway, and what could be better than a bit of exercise and fresh air - do we want a generation of obese kids bent over their devices? I would hope that they would be left alone to enjoy themselves rather than grassed up by some over officious killjoys. Especially since the government has bent over backwards to accommodate the murderous pastimes of the donor classes.
    As long as one them sketches out a team sheet on the back of their exercise book, it will count as an organised sport and thus be perfectly legal.
    And it doubles up as a track and trace contact list.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,182

    In 2016 we were on a cruise ship with a bunch of Americans on Election Day. The arguments we heard repeatedly from GOP voters were that (1) the Clintons were crooks and their Foundation was thoroughly corrupt and (2) the Obamacare Individual Mandate and associated tax penalties was costing them $000s and had to go... neither apply this time around. The other factor in play... observing from this side of the Atlantic, the Dem GOTV machine has only got stronger since 2018.

    Personal note... formerly posted as @Rexel56 but Vanilla seems to have lost my password so have reregistered using my actual name, will see whether this constrains future posting...

    A nice name too - Simon Peach.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
    Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,778
    Biden’s appeal is that he’s not Trump .

    Although the Dems really should have found a better candidate if you look at the main contenders the others all suffered from being seen as more polarizing and much easier for the GOP to attack .

    As for his gaffes , he’s been doing this for years and that’s priced in . Biden doesn’t frighten people, and importantly scores much better with over 65s than Clinton and we all now how older people love to vote .

  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,850
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
    Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
    If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    eek said:

    MattW said:

    Schools update:
    1. My daughter's primary school. On Monday issued an email to parents stating that any parent coming onto school property to pick up / drop off must wear a mask. That has now been extended in that the mass of parents hovering by the school gates must disperse - if they are waiting for walk home alone children they must actually be allowed to walk home and not be collected by mingling parents
    2. My son's high school. Another email to parents imploring them to send their kids in with masks which they strongly recommend be worn at all times when not in their own classroom
    3. My wife's school. All staff now issued visors. The sudden surge in poorly kids (coughs / colds not the pox) makes it a basic H&S at work issue for staff. Kids are still crammed in mandated rows in classrooms that you can now barely move around.

    That's just this week. I wonder if any parents at my daughter's school will make themselves legal by bringing their shotgun and perhaps a dead grouse to school. Remember that Gavin the Liar insisted that schools were perfectly safe, that staff and students absolutely shouldn't wear PPE and parents faced a fine for not bringing their sprogs to school. Less than a month into the new term and reality kicks in and now parents will be fined if they bring their sprogs to school.

    Why are grown adults allegedly incapable of standing a few feet apart at school gates?

    Quite possible at all the schools near me.
    How leafy an area do you live in. For the schools round here the the 2m rule means all roads would be closed for 20 minutes as they would be completely blocked.
    Or you let most of the school kids make their own way to and from school.

    I was pleasantly shocked to see so many young school kids going to school on their own here in Berlin. Often the very young 6 or 7 years old are accompanied by a sibling a couple of years older, but you do see some as young as six walking or cycling to school on their own.
  • Options
    MrEd said:

    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    I think the chance of Trump winning Wisconsin (and Michigan for that matter) is very small.

    Mind you in 2016 not a single poll had Trump ahead in Wisconsin the entire campaign while only Trafalgar had Trump ahead in Michigan, he won both states anyway
    Do you think the pollsters want to repeat their poor results in those states? As these two states have now been thrown into the limelight, it is reasonable to assume the polling companies are putting more effort into getting the sampling and weighting right.
    RCP had an article on this, at least for the Midwest. They found the short answer - at least for 2018 - was no and that the state polls generally underscored the GOP performance.
    This, I guess:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/11/have_pollsters_figured_out_how_to_poll_the_midwest.html
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
    Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
    If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
    The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    kinabalu said:

    rkrkrk said:

    On the US election, I've been looking for a safety bet that will come in, even if Trump does a bit better than expected. I think I've found it.

    Lay Republicans to win 30 or more states @3.65 on betfair.
    Trump won 30 exactly last time.

    He could certainly win the election with fewer than 30.

    But state polling would have to be off this time in a wide variety of states for him to keep all the ones from last time.

    In a sense, it's a reverse accumulator bet on Trump winning AZ, FL, TX, NC, GA, MI, OH, WI & PA. And it yields a 27% return. DYOR (or preferably correct mine if it's wrong!).

    Laying him to win the PV is worth considering. It's too short imo.
    Thanks - yes I'm on that also, but obviously a less generous return available.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
    Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
    This would only work with total isolation. What the UK had in April was nowhere near total isolation.

    Many retirees live with people who are of working age. They would have to live apart.

    In your life you would have to keep yourself seperate from everyone over 65 or with a BMI over 30. AND you would need to keep yourself seperate from everyone who has contact with anybody over 65 or with a BMI over 30. AND you would need to keep yourself seperate from everyone who has contact with anybody who has contact anybody over 65 or with a BMI over 30 and so on.

    Soon you find that there is no-one to work in the shops, pubs and restaurants or drive the trains and busses, that you yearn to be back to normal.
  • Options
    MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    On topic, and answering the comments of Philip, DavidL etc, some counter-points to Mike's arguments:

    1. Comparing a mid-term to a Presidential year re turnout is risky. In 2018, yes, the suburbs came out for the Democrats but there is an argument for saying the "populist" base of Trump's vote didn't feel as fired up to vote. American elections are all about turnout and Trump's base looks more fired up - there are a lot of anti-Trump's voters on Biden's side but it also feels like a lot of "soft" support that may not turn out on the day. One example - much has been made of the surge in NC early ballot requests but so far, less than 25K have been returned and accepted, a rise of just over 2K day on day. That does feel like an electorate that is dropping everything to get Trump out of the door.

    2. There have been some comments on here that Trump faces a number of obstacles, particularly the Woodward book. I can't see that myself - there have been so many allegations against him, it is hard to see another one changing too many minds. Biden, however, does face some potentially significant hurdles - how he does in the debates (yes the bar has been set low but, if he stumbles...). Maybe more of an issue is the continued BLM-violence / "mainly peaceful" protests. Monmouth have found 65% of Americans saying law and order is a major issue with Black Americans the most concerned. It's true their poll findings could be used to buttress either candidate but the BLM movement looks out of control and cops being killed runs the risk of turning the suburbs against Biden;

    3. Conversely, it could be argued Trump is getting into his stride. His approval rating is at a three month high. He can point to diplomatic triumphs in the Middle East as someone who gets things done. He can also point to his desire to get America back to work;

    4. There are signs the Democrats may be repeating the 2016 mistake of taking one of their core voting blocks for granted, namely the Hispanic population. There have been multiple reports of Trump taking share and / or the Democrats worried about whether enough has been done to get Hispanic support. That might be reflected in the polling not only in Florida but also in places like Nevada and Arizona (where you would expect a bigger Biden lead if Hispanic support was firm and the suburbs were swinging away from Trump).
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,887
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Young people are taking the hit wet unemployment from the data release today. They can't party, they're losing their jobs and they're in for 20 years of higher taxes to pay all of this off. Once again, the old have fucked over the young.

    And you'd change that how?
    Old and fat people lockdown, everyone else do as you please. Risk segmentation.
    If you exclude everyone over 60 and everyone who is overweight or worse thats a majority of the population
    The age limit is 70, not 60 and being overweight isn't an issue, it's being obese that's the issue.
    Where do you et 70 from. Over 60's also have an increased risk of death, and many of those in this age group are still economic produucers (ie. working)
This discussion has been closed.