There was a (very insightful as it turned out to be) post made on here at about this point before the 2016 election. It was also posted below a "Clinton is going to win article".
Point by point, let's look at what's changed ?
TheKitchenCabinet Posts: 701 October 2016 David, just on the article, a few counter-arguments:
1. The RCP four way average is now 5.3%, not 6.7% (apologies if you re referring to a 2-way). There seems to be a swing back to Trump in some polls: Rasmussen - and, ad infinitum, I am interested in the trend, not whether they are pro-Republican - had Clinton +7% on Monday and Trump +2% yesterday. There are signs this might also be happening in some states (NH, the latest poll has HRC at +3%). Biden's rcp national lead is 9%, minor parties are much less prominent this time round so 2 or 4 way polling won't make a difference; The recent trend if anything has been toward Biden
2. The RCP also does not have the LA Times poll. I know we have had the NYT article against it and the LA Times rebuttal of their points. I know Jack W says the NYT is fundamentally right; I am going to respectfully disagree as the LA Times point is a valid one, i.e. the weightings should even each other out. More importantly, though, this was the most accurate poll in 2012 and they have kept their methodology and so should not be discounted (RCP makes this very same point in an article). The latest Rasmussen is Biden +8, the latest (Quite old) LA Time is Biden +9 - bang on the average !
3. HRC seems to be hitting a wall at around 45% even with national polls showing a lead of +7-8%. The same seems to be happening in the battle ground states. Where she increases her lead, it seems to be because Trump's share falls, not that her share rises. That at least raises the possibility Trump can regain these votes and / or there are "shy Trumpsters". Biden seems to hit 50% in the states he needs
<1/2>
That was actually me - TheKitchenCabinet was my former nom de guerre....
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Well he isn't my party leader. But I am hugely entertained by the idea that its all his fault.
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Hang on - that wasn't the question. Starmer asked for scientific evidence and the evidence given by Shagger is that Labour supported it. Is this true of everything? Does Labour support = scientific evidence? If so I think we should know.
On the one hand: Scott finding pertinent, relevant tweets and posting them here where many people don't have the time to find them directly.
On the other: paragraphs and paragraphs of people saying how they could never support Boris but they support Boris and how they want him gone but want him to stay until he has done the thing they don't support him for.
I'll take the former.
This may be a complete non sequitur, but I value both Scott and Big_G.
Having Big_G and HYFUD on the site - a former and current prominent local Tory party activist - provides a fascinating real time picture of the evolution of the Conservative Party. It feels like a case study of the application of Gresham's Law to politics.
One reason that this site is so good is the variety of political viewpoints represented, and by and large the civil nature of debate. That really is something quite unusual on the Internet and social media.
I quite like some of @Scott_P tweets, but his much rarer original author posts are very good indeed.
A bit of cooling off time is not such a bad thing though, hope @malcolmg has had his 3 match ban over soon.
As if by magic I have been pardoned, I will be on my best behaviour.
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
It was his plan last year that led to an 80 seat Tory majority when he had the chance to completely split them
Maybe this is a daft question and, if so, apologies.
But here goes: didn’t all the polls in 2016 show Clinton winning? Now all the polls are showing Biden winning. Why should they be / are they any more right than in 2016?
I really want Trump to lose (and lose badly, ideally). But I can’t help feeling that too many - possibly including the Biden leadership team - are in danger of confusing what they would like to happen with what is happening. Trump’s appeal to people more worried about law and order than about elegant speeches at Gettysburg should not be underestimated.
What am I missing?
@Cyclefree Here is how I am looknig at the 2020 polling compared to 2016
Well, that's the rubn isn't it. But I think 2020 is going to be more accurate than 2016 because here is the educational breakdown from 2016 followed by 2020
2016
2020
Just look at what happened to the weighting by Education. It was 14% HS or less in 2016. It is now 31% in 2020
If you were to reweight the 2020 poll with the 2016 weights then it would be a 1 point race. If you reweight 2016 by 2020 then, wel, you get a lot more accurate poll with a Trump lead of 15,
Just on this, it looks like what they have done is take the US Census Data and assume that turnout in each category will be the same as the census splits i.e. no differentiated turnout (I've assumed when they same Some College it means those who drop out AND 2 year degrees). So, to some degree, they have learned from their 2016 mistakes.
Reports in Israel claim that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, broke the government’s Covid-19 lockdown restrictions to get her hair done.
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
With all due respect to 'American Greatness', one can both believe that the American Left desperately needs to be 'chastened' (as another of their headlines has it) and that Donald Trump is simply too stupid and malevolent to be the man to do it as President.
Biden is winning precisely because he is the epitome of moderation, in the mould of Barack 'I would have been considered a moderate Republican in the 80s' Obama. The US progressives are pleased Trump's on his way out, but in tears about the re-emergence of Democratic centrism ('I beat the socialist!' - Joseph Robinette Biden) as a dominant electoral force. Ironically, Biden and Harris, who could collectively hold the Presidency for the next 12 years when she takes over in 2024, will do more to chasten the left than Trump could, despite his good instincts on some cultural issues.
Funnily enough, I share quite a bit of that view. Ironically, having Biden in as President would take away some of the power of the left in the Democrats. Worth remembering many of the House seats won in 2018 were not campaign on the basis of opposition to Trump but on issues such as Healthcare. The left in the Democrats need a Trump like figure to thrive.
The opposite is true of course: The Trump/MAGA/Tea Party movement grew out of a reaction to the (wrongly) perceived liberalness of Obama (and let's face it, the fact he wasn't white)
It's worth reading Jeffrey Rubin's book "The Expendables". What it makes clear was the #1reason why many working class / middle class shifted to Trump was because of Obama's commitment to free trade agreements and the impact it had on their jobs.
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Hang on - that wasn't the question. Starmer asked for scientific evidence and the evidence given by Shagger is that Labour supported it. Is this true of everything? Does Labour support = scientific evidence? If so I think we should know.
And yet when given the chance Labour abstained on the measure that would have forced the government to give scientific evidence to the House. Starmer is another empty suit with empty words coming out of his mouth.
*Betting post* - My tip yesterday of Biden 58-61% of vote at 20/1 has now come in to 13.5. That's borderline value I'd guess.
Strangely though Biden at >61% of vote has gone out to 41/1. I've nibbled again.
It's a longshot for sure, but it's not inconceivable if Trump supporters don't turnout, or postal voting makes it much easier for Dems to motivate their voters to send ballots in.
Have to say this feels like wishful thinking more than objective betting.
The CNN poll yesterday is the only one that was within a whisker of 58% for Biden (albeit some include "don't know" as a category so slightly understate both candidates, "Mr Don't Know" not appearing on the ballot).
The race has been very stable for a long period, and there is no doubt that Trump is well liked by a group numbering at or not far short of 40% of the population (and inspires genuine enthusiasm amongst many of those).
I can see a double digit win for Biden as a serious possibility (although not probable). But a 20%+ win? I'd need much longer odds than 40-1.
Latest Pennsylvania poll is only a 5%, gap, 50 - 45. Trafalgar which did well last time, I know it slants Republican, has things much much close. Ohio yesterday in another poll a dead heat. Queues to vote taking 3 hours in some places, expect that to be seven in polling day. People will get fed up and not go, probably hit Democrats harder. Still bet on Trump.
You should expect that to hurt Dems more, provided some astonishingly dumb person with a lot of influence with GOP voters didn't dissuade them from voting by post.
The Democrats messaging on postal votes has also shifted though from big encouragement to saying vote in person. One wonders how dumb Trump actually was on this issue (point being, a larger % of postal votes seem to get rejected)
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
Just to save me a bit of time, Ed, are they saying that a surge in gun sales is good for Trump?
Don't you always see reports of gun sales surging around American elections? Although given the deer hunting season typically starts around the same time I imagine there may be an element of confusing correlation with causation.
Deer hunting, yes of course, like De Niro! And on that topic I hope people remember my learned piece with that theme of a few months ago calling WH2020 as a Biden landslide.
#aheadofthecurve
Was that about Trump playing Russian roulette by any chance ?
"Right. C'mon. Gimme FIVE bullets in that gun." "Five? You sure, Dad." "Yeah, Ivanka, sweetie. I'm a leader. You know that." "Um, ok, so brave!" ... click click click ... "Here you go, Dad." "Sure. Ok. So go on then, baby girl." "What?" "You first."
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
Just to save me a bit of time, Ed, are they saying that a surge in gun sales is good for Trump?
Basically, yes - namely, if you are buying a gun, that means you are (a) more likely to be concerned re the breakdown of law and order (b) if you have bought one, you don't want to give it up and (c) that will make you more motivated to vote and organise
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Hang on - that wasn't the question. Starmer asked for scientific evidence and the evidence given by Shagger is that Labour supported it. Is this true of everything? Does Labour support = scientific evidence? If so I think we should know.
And yet when given the chance Labour abstained on the measure that would have forced the government to give scientific evidence to the House. Starmer is another empty suit with empty words coming out of his mouth.
And thats party political. Out there in the real world people are getting sick and losing their jobs. Do we not ask any questions about why because SKS is a bit wooden?
*Betting post* - My tip yesterday of Biden 58-61% of vote at 20/1 has now come in to 13.5. That's borderline value I'd guess.
Strangely though Biden at >61% of vote has gone out to 41/1. I've nibbled again.
It's a longshot for sure, but it's not inconceivable if Trump supporters don't turnout, or postal voting makes it much easier for Dems to motivate their voters to send ballots in.
Have to say this feels like wishful thinking more than objective betting.
The CNN poll yesterday is the only one that was within a whisker of 58% for Biden (albeit some include "don't know" as a category so slightly understate both candidates, "Mr Don't Know" not appearing on the ballot).
The race has been very stable for a long period, and there is no doubt that Trump is well liked by a group numbering at or not far short of 40% of the population (and inspires genuine enthusiasm amongst many of those).
I can see a double digit win for Biden as a serious possibility (although not probable). But a 20%+ win? I'd need much longer odds than 40-1.
Latest average national poll rating is Biden 51% Trump 42% so that CNN poll looks like an outlier, though still about a 3% swing from Trump to Biden since 2016 at the moment
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
Just to save me a bit of time, Ed, are they saying that a surge in gun sales is good for Trump?
And AR15 ammo, apparently. I guess having eleven guns rather than ten might make you more likely to vote, or something ?
Nick Bryant's piece today talks about this being a "dystopian" moment for America and it does feel that way sometimes, watching from afar. Yesterday I saw a clip of a Trump event in Florida. All these seniors MAGA'd and flagged up, driving a convoy of golf carts. And I thought, what a tragedy for JG Ballard that he is not around in 2020.
Margaret Atwood says hi.
Oh yes indeed. Probably better than Ballard but I've read loads of him and none of her.
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
Just to save me a bit of time, Ed, are they saying that a surge in gun sales is good for Trump?
Basically, yes - namely, if you are buying a gun, that means you are (a) more likely to be concerned re the breakdown of law and order (b) if you have bought one, you don't want to give it up and (c) that will make you more motivated to vote and organise
FYI, might be of interest. It's not data-led and even I found one or two points a bit unconvincing. However, I think the point he makes about gun sales is a good one:
Just to save me a bit of time, Ed, are they saying that a surge in gun sales is good for Trump?
Don't you always see reports of gun sales surging around American elections? Although given the deer hunting season typically starts around the same time I imagine there may be an element of confusing correlation with causation.
Deer hunting, yes of course, like De Niro! And on that topic I hope people remember my learned piece with that theme of a few months ago calling WH2020 as a Biden landslide.
#aheadofthecurve
Was that about Trump playing Russian roulette by any chance ?
"Right. C'mon. Gimme FIVE bullets in that gun." "Five? You sure, Dad." "Yeah, Ivanka, sweetie. I'm a leader. You know that." "Um, ok, so brave!" ... click click click ... "Here you go, Dad." "Sure. Ok. So go on then, baby girl." "What?" "You first."
I was rather thinking that he's already done so with regard to the virus. The Deer Hunter piece was very good, btw.
Whatever one's opinion on what should be done, or not, are we agreed that the stated aim of "virus suppression" is not being achieved? And therefore that the local measures are not effective? Or are they?
Starmer - can the PM set out the scientific evidence for the 10pm curfew? Shagger - yes, its because you voted for it. Stop undermining the country
Ultimately Boris is right, Labour voted through the non-oversight package and then let the government renew the same one and abstained on it. Starmer had the opportunity to force concessions but he flunked it and now oversight and votes are at the gift of the government who will never allow a vote on measures they know they will lose, see the withdrawal of the 10pm closing time debate/vote.
Starmer is turning out to be a rubbish politician.
Hang on - that wasn't the question. Starmer asked for scientific evidence and the evidence given by Shagger is that Labour supported it. Is this true of everything? Does Labour support = scientific evidence? If so I think we should know.
And yet when given the chance Labour abstained on the measure that would have forced the government to give scientific evidence to the House. Starmer is another empty suit with empty words coming out of his mouth.
And thats party political. Out there in the real world people are getting sick and losing their jobs. Do we not ask any questions about why because SKS is a bit wooden?
No it isn't. Starmer could have spoken to Brady who had the numbers and forced the government to come to the table with a revised bill that guaranteed debates and votes on all measures. He made the choice not to and now we're all having to live with it. Labour gave the government the ability to not give a shit about evidence and are now making policy to suit them, even it's a dog's breakfast.
In the real world those people needed Starmer to stand up to the government when it counted, he's doing now to get a soundbite on the news, to look like he's doing something about it knowing full well he passed up an opportunity to actually do something about it.
We know Boris is shite, no one is disputing that. We know the government has completely fucked up basically any kind of public health policy in regards to virus containment. Yet when it came down to it Labour didn't even bother voting against the bill which allowed the government to continue exactly as it had done for the previous six months. They just accepted the promise of votes from the same group of people happy to break the law.
As I said, Starmer is an empty vessel with empty words. Our political class has let the nation down time and again, and Starmer has proved he's part of it.
Am I the only one to be surprised that the Nobel Physics Prize is finally awarded for black holes -- shortly after the death of Hawking -- and to Hawking's early collaborator ?
I mean, it really looks as if they had been waiting for Hawking to die.
Nobel Prizes are often awarded so long after the work, it is a surprise any of them are still alive. Penrose is 89, for example. This is not helped by decades passing between theory and experimental or observational proof.
Re the Nobel Prize, the 2020 Peace Prize winner is set to be announced at 11am tomorrow. I would like to have a small bet, but not on Greta Thunberg or the WHO, the apparent favourites. Which sites have a market with a wider range of candidates in their market?
Comments
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1313784402732896256?s=20
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1313784575634669568?s=20
The CNN poll yesterday is the only one that was within a whisker of 58% for Biden (albeit some include "don't know" as a category so slightly understate both candidates, "Mr Don't Know" not appearing on the ballot).
The race has been very stable for a long period, and there is no doubt that Trump is well liked by a group numbering at or not far short of 40% of the population (and inspires genuine enthusiasm amongst many of those).
I can see a double digit win for Biden as a serious possibility (although not probable). But a 20%+ win? I'd need much longer odds than 40-1.
"Five? You sure, Dad."
"Yeah, Ivanka, sweetie. I'm a leader. You know that."
"Um, ok, so brave!" ... click click click ... "Here you go, Dad."
"Sure. Ok. So go on then, baby girl."
"What?"
"You first."
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
new thread
The Deer Hunter piece was very good, btw.
And therefore that the local measures are not effective?
Or are they?
In the real world those people needed Starmer to stand up to the government when it counted, he's doing now to get a soundbite on the news, to look like he's doing something about it knowing full well he passed up an opportunity to actually do something about it.
We know Boris is shite, no one is disputing that. We know the government has completely fucked up basically any kind of public health policy in regards to virus containment. Yet when it came down to it Labour didn't even bother voting against the bill which allowed the government to continue exactly as it had done for the previous six months. They just accepted the promise of votes from the same group of people happy to break the law.
As I said, Starmer is an empty vessel with empty words. Our political class has let the nation down time and again, and Starmer has proved he's part of it.