It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
There are plenty of wealthy voters in Florida or suburban Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016 even if they did not tell pollsters they would do so
But they did tell Trafalgar, right?
Remember this “shy Trump” theory has been debunked.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
There are plenty of wealthy voters in Florida or suburban Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016 even if they did not tell pollsters they would do so
But they did tell Trafalgar, right?
Remember this “shy Trump” theory has been debunked.
They didn't tell Trafalgar, Trafalgar just adjusted the main voting intention question with a subsequent question on how they thought their neighbours would vote to be the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
There are plenty of wealthy voters in Florida or suburban Michigan and Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016 even if they did not tell pollsters they would do so
But they did tell Trafalgar, right?
Remember this “shy Trump” theory has been debunked.
They didn't tell Trafalgar, Trafalgar just weighted on how they thought their neighbours would vote etc to be the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016
But they didn’t weight correctly in other states? Funny that. Maybe they just got lucky?
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
So you have finally backed him?
Yes
Did you just cover the win or an EV range?
EV range. So I had problems with my Betfair account so have just done Ladbrokes for now but in a range of 270-349 with a weighting towards the lower ned. When my BF account gets sorted, I will probably go for more finessed bets. The one I did go big on was Trump at 220.5+ EC votes which was at 10/11
I’m genuinely surprised you’re not expecting Trump to get 350+ EVs
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
It depends. A lot of people have fled California and NY because of the tax systems and everything else and have fled to places like Texas, Arizona and NC. The question is (a) have they brought their Democrat voting habits with them or (b) will they go Republican because they are fleeing Democrat states.
You are right, on a national view it should not make much difference but if, eg, 100K people flee CA for AZ and they are mainly Democrats, it doesn't matter for CA but it does matter for AZ.
Given some of the races are so tight, even a few tens of thousands can make a difference
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
It depends. A lot of people have fled California and NY because of the tax systems and everything else and have fled to places like Texas, Arizona and NC. The question is (a) have they brought their Democrat voting habits with them or (b) will they go Republican because they are fleeing Democrat states.
You are right, on a national view it should not make much difference but if, eg, 100K people flee CA for AZ and they are mainly Democrats, it doesn't matter for CA but it does matter for AZ.
Given some of the races are so tight, even a few tens of thousands can make a difference
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
So you have finally backed him?
Yes
Did you just cover the win or an EV range?
EV range. So I had problems with my Betfair account so have just done Ladbrokes for now but in a range of 270-349 with a weighting towards the lower ned. When my BF account gets sorted, I will probably go for more finessed bets. The one I did go big on was Trump at 220.5+ EC votes which was at 10/11
I’m genuinely surprised you’re not expecting Trump to get 350+ EVs
I can't see it. Look, I'm going to post in more detail tomorrow and I do have a few bets that are crazy but are based on one or two conversations but, in essence, I think he could pick up states like MN, NV and even VA but I think there is a good chance he loses IA (WI I'm not sure about - the rioting there is a major factor). He got 303 last time, even if you take the 3 states above and he doesn't lose any, he gets to 332. So, I might put a couple of quid on 350+ but they would be outside bets.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
It depends. A lot of people have fled California and NY because of the tax systems and everything else and have fled to places like Texas, Arizona and NC. The question is (a) have they brought their Democrat voting habits with them or (b) will they go Republican because they are fleeing Democrat states.
You are right, on a national view it should not make much difference but if, eg, 100K people flee CA for AZ and they are mainly Democrats, it doesn't matter for CA but it does matter for AZ.
Given some of the races are so tight, even a few tens of thousands can make a difference
But Biden does not need to win Arizona.
No, and that is true. But these people are also in NC and ex-NY people in FL. The internal migration in the States is a factor that gets little talked about.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
At this 11th hour are you equivocating?
No, my gut has always been it will be the closest presidential election since 2000
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Did I say that I agreed with Boris' approach?
I have been openly critical of the government's approach to lockdown several times here.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Did I say that I agreed with Boris' approach?
I have been openly critical of the government's approach to lockdown several times here.
Fair enough, apologies. As you described yourself as a working class conservative, I assumed you supported the government.
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Did I say that I agreed with Boris' approach?
I have been openly critical of the government's approach to lockdown several times here.
Fair enough, apologies. As you described yourself as a working class conservative, I assumed you supported the government.
No need to apologise!
Yes I do support the government but they have been a bit useless on COVID! I still prefer Boris to Starmer.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
This is a really excellent point.
The problem is that there are a lot of people - like me, for example - who have no great issues with most of Trump's policies. But who have come to think of him as a danger to the US system of government.
I have little doubt that Biden will be a dreadful President.
But the American system, the checks and balances of Congress and the Presidency and the Courts and Freedom of the Press, and basic God Damn Honesty matters.
The fact that he has become even more deranged as polling day approaches, that he demands Bill Barr looks into charging his political opponents, should worry, maybe terrify, anyone who wants America to be Great. Because greatness means recognising the system matters more than any one person.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
It was among the most underwhelming PB links through ever. Old, equivocal polling. And I say this as a Trump backer!
I think @Anabobazina you need to rephrase the statement you are a "Trump backer", I think it needs some slight clarification.
However, why is it underwhelming vs the 16% CNN lead that everyone raves about? Gallup is a respectable pollster. It has taken what looks like a respectable enough survey and it has presented its findings. I'm sceptical of polls but I would have a lot more respect if you were equally dismissive of the latest poll that had Joe B with a 150%+ lead and winning Idaho by 80%
YouGov and Ipsos Mori are both very respectable pollsters and both show a sizeable Biden lead. Obviously they could both be very wrong, but that's no more likely than Gallup being wrong or irrelevant.
It comes down to whether you believe the direct questions (who will you vote for) or the indirect ones (do you feel better off, which then leads by implication to whom you would vote for).
When it comes to Trump, time and time again I know people who would vote Trump who also say they would say Biden to a pollster because it is the "right" thing to say. They tend to be wealthier, more professional Americans.
Now, let's be honest, my anecdotes mean jack. But when you hear this time and time again, you question the polls.
I think with this one, you just have to go with your gut. If you believe the polls are right and Biden has a double digit lead, go on him big. I don't but I could be 100% wrong.
Surely wealthier and more professional Americans are massively over-represented in New England and in California and thus will have no real impact on the overall result?
Plus did these people vote Trump in 2016?
Remember Biden does not need to win over any 2016 Trump voters to win. He merely needs a better Dem turnout.
It depends. A lot of people have fled California and NY because of the tax systems and everything else and have fled to places like Texas, Arizona and NC. The question is (a) have they brought their Democrat voting habits with them or (b) will they go Republican because they are fleeing Democrat states.
You are right, on a national view it should not make much difference but if, eg, 100K people flee CA for AZ and they are mainly Democrats, it doesn't matter for CA but it does matter for AZ.
Given some of the races are so tight, even a few tens of thousands can make a difference
Until 1992 California usually voted Republican at Presidential Elections. Perhaps the population shifts referred to will eventually bring the state back into play.
Sorry but Marcus Rashford sent a few tweets, forced the Government into a U-turn and now gets a MBE? There are plenty of people who work day in, day out for a pittance of what he gets and, if they are lucky, get a BEM at the end of the day for their services.
What a joke.
When Christopher Chope was awarded with a knighthood, any criticism of any honour bestowed on anyone else became null and void.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
Gallup famously stopped doing presidential polling after they mis called the 2012 election.
I believe Zogby and Rasmussen did likewise but Ras came back to it. In fairness, they're ok now at least in the sense that they are consistent. As one of my old teachers used to say, 'if you can't be right, at least be consistent'. Can't fault Ras on that reasoning.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
As an aside, most Presidencies improve after the midterms. At that point, you usually have a hostile House, and you need to compromise.
Clinton became a better President when he lost his majority, I'd argue Bush Sr did too (albeit it happened later due to 9/11).
Trump did not. Trump thrives on conflict, but successful government in the US system is about expanding your coalition, and forcing the other side to be the one that appears petulant.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
I too am mystified. FiveThirtyEight give Biden a 98% chance of winning Virginia. It’s true that there haven’t been many polls, but that’s becuase no one expects it to be close.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
Trump's favourable/unfavourables are better in Virginia than in any of PA/WI/MI. Virginia has performed very well economically in the last four years.
That means that - if you want to bet on a Trump surprise - VA would be a place I'd look for it.
Are we going to be able to cope with this virus without wrecking our societies in the process? I'm not confident at the moment, which is very depressing.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
Trump's favourable/unfavourables are better in Virginia than in any of PA/WI/MI. Virginia has performed very well economically in the last four years.
That means that - if you want to bet on a Trump surprise - VA would be a place I'd look for it.
If Trump won VA he could afford to lose PA, WI and MI and be re elected so long as he holds his other 2016 states.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
He did though introduce tariffs on Chinese imports which is what many of his rustbelt voters wanted, if taxing the rich more was their main priority they would have voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary not Trump
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
He did though introduce tariffs on Chinese imports which is what many of his rustbelt voters wanted, if taxing the rich more was their main priority they would have voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary not Trump
And the US trade deficit is worse now than when he got in, because he (and Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro) never understood what actually cause trade deficits:
Are we going to be able to cope with this virus without wrecking our societies in the process? I'm not confident at the moment, which is very depressing.
Yes we are, we've survived a lot lot worse without wrecking our societies. It will, however, be badly bruised for some time, but let's not compete in expressions of despair.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
Trump's favourable/unfavourables are better in Virginia than in any of PA/WI/MI. Virginia has performed very well economically in the last four years.
That means that - if you want to bet on a Trump surprise - VA would be a place I'd look for it.
If Trump won VA he could afford to lose PA, WI and MI and be re elected so long as he holds his other 2016 states.
Plus of course Virginia and Nevada and Colorado were the only Hillary states that voted for George W Bush twice, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin voted for Kerry and Gore so if Trump lost the latter 3 he would want to aim to pick up at least one of the former as his best chance of making up for it and of those only Virginia and Colorado are really big enough to somewhat compensate
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
That is certainly part of it but an equally important aspect is the racism, bigotry and hostility to anything remotely smacking of liberalism. This is why I share B's amazement that a man of Robert's education and hairstyle could ever have countenanced voting for the Orange Turd.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Johnson was an utterly shite London Mayor, it's bizarre to see Tories wanting to remove Khan because he happens to be Labour.
The best Mayor London actually has had was Livingstone by a country mile.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
Why don't we do the same for the rest of the network, we could run it as British Rail.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
He did though introduce tariffs on Chinese imports which is what many of his rustbelt voters wanted, if taxing the rich more was their main priority they would have voted for Sanders in the Democratic primary not Trump
And the US trade deficit is worse now than when he got in, because he (and Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro) never understood what actually cause trade deficits:
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Johnson was an utterly shite London Mayor, it's bizarre to see Tories wanting to remove Khan because he happens to be Labour.
The best Mayor London actually has had was Livingstone by a country mile.
If superannuated lefties make the best London mayors, perhaps Corbyn missed his true calling.
Prior to COVID Khan was on track to run a surplus. London is almost unique in how much of its costs come from fairs and not the taxpayer, Tories should be proud.
It's funny he's entirely to blame for TfL mess, yet when the Tories cock up it's just how it is.
Perhaps as usual people are actually arguing from party political points of view and not what is actually best for London?
I'll tell you what, the majority of Londoners approve of Khan, or at worst don't mind him. I can tell you for a fact he is a million times more popular than Johnson and I enjoy the amount of racists he triggers. I will be proud to vote for him a second time.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
You're obviously hankering for the golden days of Ken Livingstone. No ULEZ or congestion charges, and Fares Fair policy to benefit poorer Londoners. I assume you're a socialist?
Er no. I'm not often called a socialist! I am a working class Conservative. NO time for Ken Livingstone.
I was being ironic. You obviously don't like Sadiq Khan. But when you say that he is pushing for a "London lockdown", what do you think his motivation is? If he gets his way it's hardly going to make him more popular in London, is it? Or maybe it's because he's worried about the spread of the virus and thinks it's the right thing to do?
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
It's simply his 'control' mentality similar to Sturgeon
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
What utter nonsense. How do you explain Boris Johnson then, with all his laws, guidance, restrictions, telling people what to do and so on? A conservative saying you mustn't meet more than five other people - how interfering, busybody nanny state can you get?
Johnson was an utterly shite London Mayor, it's bizarre to see Tories wanting to remove Khan because he happens to be Labour.
The best Mayor London actually has had was Livingstone by a country mile.
If superannuated lefties make the best London mayors, perhaps Corbyn missed his true calling.
Corbyn would be a dreadful Mayor, more and more evidence has come out post his loss about how piss poor of an organiser he was.
John McDonnell might have made a good Mayor in years gone by.
Personally if it were me, I would raise council tax significantly in London, invest in a massive housebuilding programme and cut fairs on public transport.
Personally if it were me, I would raise council tax significantly in London, invest in a massive housebuilding programme and cut fairs on public transport.
Big council tax rises just when loads of upper middle class professionals have discovered home working is possible and that they don't need to live in a big city to be able to do their job, and for the same money as their house is worth in London they can buy a 5 bed detached property with a massive garden in the countryside and still have enough money left over for private school fees. Brave.
Again not really very funny. I noticed that the impressions are also really bad on the new spitting image, the Boris Johnson one doesn't sound remotely like him.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
770k isn't what Ireland spent on track and trace, it was what they spent on a very basic app (which they have had to spend more on). And no country relying on the Apple / Google Bluetooth approach has shown to work very well. The only country with an app that works is South Korea.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
I don't subscribe to Britbox so I haven't seen the full thing, but the few teaser sketches they have put on YouTube are really crap. If they are supposed to be convincing me to sub, it isn't working.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
The reason why Netflix paid crazy money for Friends and the Office is they know people will watch those shows again and again and again and thus keep their subscription. Chances of somebody wanting to keep their subscription to watch even a funny Spitting Image episode based on todays events in 3 years time, bugger all.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
I don't subscribe to Britbox so I haven't seen the full thing, but the few teaser sketches they have put on YouTube are really crap. If they are supposed to be convincing me to sub, it isn't working.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
Yes to be fair I've not seen it either, just the clips on YouTube - but none of those clips have made me laugh yet. And normally the clips that go viral with a show like this are meant to be the 'best' bits . . . if that is the best they have to offer then I worry about the rest of it.
Not one of the sketches I've seen yet are cutting or funny or anything. I'd rather watch an out of date Daily Show episode than spend my time watching that from the trailers shown.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
I don't subscribe to Britbox so I haven't seen the full thing, but the few teaser sketches they have put on YouTube are really crap. If they are supposed to be convincing me to sub, it isn't working.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
Yes to be fair I've not seen it either, just the clips on YouTube - but none of those clips have made me laugh yet. And normally the clips that go viral with a show like this are meant to be the 'best' bits . . . if that is the best they have to offer then I worry about the rest of it.
Not one of the sketches I've seen yet are cutting or funny or anything. I'd rather watch an out of date Daily Show episode than spend my time watching that from the trailers shown.
Even Newzoids was better, that did have a number of really viral sketches e.g the Nigel Farage one comes to mind. Prince George as a wideboy cockney was quite good, and from memory they got Boris down pretty well. But there was too much filler in it.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
I don't subscribe to Britbox so I haven't seen the full thing, but the few teaser sketches they have put on YouTube are really crap. If they are supposed to be convincing me to sub, it isn't working.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
Yes to be fair I've not seen it either, just the clips on YouTube - but none of those clips have made me laugh yet. And normally the clips that go viral with a show like this are meant to be the 'best' bits . . . if that is the best they have to offer then I worry about the rest of it.
Not one of the sketches I've seen yet are cutting or funny or anything. I'd rather watch an out of date Daily Show episode than spend my time watching that from the trailers shown.
Even Newzoids was better, that did have a number of really viral sketches e.g the Nigel Farage one comes to mind. Prince George as a wideboy cockney was quite good, and from memory they got Boris down pretty well. But there was too much filler in it.
I think the best political satire recently has been done on social media by organisations like Joe. This captures the atmosphere of the meaningful votes brilliantly.
R number possibly below 1. Case numbers being significantly inflated by students not actually living in London. You would think that he might actually have some pause for thought before insisting that London must charge full steam ahead... (and apparently it MUST be done London wide - because we're all interlinked don't you know - although what's to stop people travelling to some nice areas just outside isn't clear)
Or does he think that London needs a lockdown to trigger funding to save TfL???
The government has already given TFL £1.6bn this year.
The government needs to take TFL control away from Sadiq, bring in independent managers reporting directly to the government and strip out all of the inefficiencies and deadwood staff working in TFL.
And get rid of the congestion charge and ULEZ as that hammers small businesses and poorer people most - typical Labour!
Wow, I've never read such drivel on this site.
Who do you think the managers at TfL now? Labour partisans? Lot of new blood has arrived recently, lots of ex-Heathrow and Delloite people. Who exactly do you have in mind that will extract these "efficiencies" once free of the iron grip of Sadiq?
The 1.6bn sounds like a lot, but it's required because revenue pretty much dried up in March and hasn't recovered. And TfL turns over a lot in farebox revenue, because the gvmt took away the direct grant.
The c-charge and ULEZ are needed now more than ever as an independent income stream. In fact, they should be extended.
I'm not exactly Sadiq's biggest fan, but jeeze. CCHQ need to pay their trolls more.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
Is it just me or is the new Spitting Image just not funny at all?
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
I don't subscribe to Britbox so I haven't seen the full thing, but the few teaser sketches they have put on YouTube are really crap. If they are supposed to be convincing me to sub, it isn't working.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
Yes to be fair I've not seen it either, just the clips on YouTube - but none of those clips have made me laugh yet. And normally the clips that go viral with a show like this are meant to be the 'best' bits . . . if that is the best they have to offer then I worry about the rest of it.
Not one of the sketches I've seen yet are cutting or funny or anything. I'd rather watch an out of date Daily Show episode than spend my time watching that from the trailers shown.
Even Newzoids was better, that did have a number of really viral sketches e.g the Nigel Farage one comes to mind. Prince George as a wideboy cockney was quite good, and from memory they got Boris down pretty well. But there was too much filler in it.
I think the best political satire recently has been done on social media by organisations like Joe. This captures the atmosphere of the meaningful votes brilliantly.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
Again not really very funny. I noticed that the impressions are also really bad on the new spitting image, the Boris Johnson one doesn't sound remotely like him.
I think the reason it worked first time round wasn’t that it was particularly funny, but that prime time utter disrespect for leaders and institutions had a certain novelty back then. Now it’s simply the default.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
He's a fairly typical Republican.
No, he’s quite unusual. I don’t think anyone with no interest at all in politics for its own sake has ever under up elected to such a position.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
He's a fairly typical Republican.
No, he’s quite unusual. I don’t think anyone with no interest at all in politics for its own sake has ever under up elected to such a position.
I would question whether trump has no interest in politics for its own sake. He seems to have pretty strong ideological views. In a way he has done a good job of exposing the true face of the republican party.
Also, Berlusconi springs to mind as having some similarities, and is someone who sought election to save his own skin. Whereas Trump seems to have got seriously into politics because a black president offended his racist ideology. Though I am also open to the theory that he was in serious financial trouble and saw it as a way out.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
I am staggered that you ever considered he was electable in the first place. Hilary would have been cr*p but I doubt that she would have turned the system on its head like Trump has.
If you come from a rustbelt state like Michigan or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and voted for a Republican for President in 2016 for the first time since you or your parents voted for Reagan, you voted for Trump precisely to turn the system on its head because most of the manufacturing jobs have left your state and Trump was the candidate against globalisation and cheap imports from China and Hillary was not.
Bizarrely, instead of implementing a trillion dollar infrastructure package focused on left behind areas (which is what he promised), Trump instead decided to implement tax cuts that mostly benefited tech executives in California.
Trump is not a populist. He ran as a populist but on entering the White House adopted mainstream Republican policies like the massive tax cuts for squillionaires and their corporations and (attempting to) end Obamacare in place of stimulus spending, improving health coverage or even, for that matter, building the bloody wall. Whether this switch away from populism was due to his having no real policies of his own, or was always cynically intended, is not clear. I suspect the former.
I think Trump defies any sort of categorisation. He isn't a populist or a nationalist for example.
He's a fairly typical Republican.
No, he’s quite unusual. I don’t think anyone with no interest at all in politics for its own sake has ever under up elected to such a position.
One way to look at Trump, it has just occurred to me so this has not been thought through, is to separate the President's twin roles as head of state on the one hand and head of government on the other.
As head of government, Trump started out with no real policies or even philosophies other than hostility to China and Mexican immigrants. This allowed him to fall under the influence of the GOP Congress and enact more-or-less mainstream Republican policies. By not starting any more wars, containing North Korea and overseeing the restoration of diplomatic relations between two Gulf states and Israel, Trump might even be regarded as successful in foreign affairs.
As head of state on the other hand, Trump has abandoned the traditional dignity of office. Rather than bringing the nation together, he has aggravated its divisions. It is here, by appalling and offending so many Americans, that Trump has done most harm to his prospects of reelection.
Biden's campaign is deliberately light on policy and is centred on not being Trump. The danger for Biden might be that Americans can hold their noses for four more years with a hated head of state in return for a head of government who has at least some success on the home and overseas fronts, and especially as vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 hove into view.
Biden's campaign is deliberately light on policy and is centred on not being Trump. The danger for Biden might be that Americans can hold their noses for four more years with a hated head of state in return for a head of government who has at least some success on the home and overseas fronts, and especially as vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 hove into view.
Biden has two tracks; What we see in the media and on the twitters is mostly about not being Trump. That makes a virtue of necessity because Trump sucks up all the oxygen. But the ads he's running in the swing states are much more "here's the policy that's going to help you":
BTW This site has a great roundup of the ads the campaigns are running. The ads they're spending money on are often quite different to the clips we see on social media, which are more about getting donations and driving media coverage.
It would help if he could spell Meghan Markle's name.
It's her parents who can't spell, people are forever sticking random hs where they don't belong because they think it makes nhames look more Ghaelic. Absolutely cracking letter.
Actually not really. I've said plenty of times I have held off betting on the race because I have been unsure to the point I've been told I need to come off the fence. Today has persuaded me of that.
Today's polls showing Biden winning landslide margins and winning every state poll has convinced you to back Trump?
I suppose every betting winner needs a mug on the other side of the bet so it is very generous of you to be that mug.
Not every state poll today has had Trump ahead, polls in the last 24 hours have had Trump ahead in Florida, Arizona and Georgia
Your record as a pundit is about the best on here. I'm sure quite a few are following you. I hope for the sake of your reputation and their finances you don't end up getting this wrong!
At the moment I think Biden will still probably win by picking up Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin but Trump only needs to win one of those again and he will be re elected, I think Trump will also hold his other 2016 states
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
That is fair enough Robert and I totally see where you are coming from (and glad you are on the same page as me on VA). I agree the Midwest hasn't been great, which is why I'm not bullish on IA and maybe WI.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Biden holds a near 13pt lead in Virginia and Trump is 10.0 to win there. Not sure what you and Robert are seeing TBH. At those prices, I’d be shovelling on Trump if I thought he had any chance there. I don’t, and I’m not.
And Virginia is getting massive overspill in the North from DC commuters, who aren’t Trump voters. When I was there last year people in the south of the state talked about the north like it was a different state.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
Some people who are worthy have missed out in the honours list. Gongs are given to people just for doign their job in the civil service. It's cronyism. We should get rid of the whole thing as unfair. It's an imperialist relic.
There, that should covery most of the bases.
You forgot highly valued British tradition which borders on sedition to oppose
Comments
Remember this “shy Trump” theory has been debunked.
You are right, on a national view it should not make much difference but if, eg, 100K people flee CA for AZ and they are mainly Democrats, it doesn't matter for CA but it does matter for AZ.
Given some of the races are so tight, even a few tens of thousands can make a difference
The anti-lockdowners on here always seem to think that politicians (or scientists) of all stripes who favour greater restrictions, whether it's Sturgeon, Johnson, Khan, Drakeford or whoever, are doing so to make themselves more popular. I don't think that's their motivation at all.
He wants to tell people what to do, he doesn't want people to think for themselves or make their own decisions.
It's typical Labour statist mentality.
And in normal times, you'd expect the economy type questions to dominate. (Which was why I was so bullish on DJT towards the end of last year.)
However, there are three problems with the Gallup analysis:
1. I don't think the economy is quite the plus it was for DTJ, because Covid.
2. I keep a fairly close eye on economic growth on a per-state basis (https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gdp-state) and the Midwest is a relative disaster-zone. All three of the Presidents key must win states (MI, WI, PA) are in the bottom ten states for economic performance in the past four years.
While those people feeling much better economically are in States which are either completely safe for the Republicans (Texas) or the same for the Democrats (the West Coast). The only swing state to have really performed well economically is Virginia, which is another reason I have it as a possible R pickup.
3. I don't see any crosstabs.
Ultimately, I think the odds that the pollsters - in aggregate - are wrong by four points or more is small. DJT's chances, therefore, are contingent on him turning the ship around in the next 25 days. And it's hard to make that more than a 25% shot at present.
I have been openly critical of the government's approach to lockdown several times here.
I'm going to just a post on here tomorrow as to the rationale and some of the state bets that I am taking. Meanwhile, I am going to sleep on my Frette sheets, a quality which I am sure @Roger will appreciate
Yes I do support the government but they have been a bit useless on COVID! I still prefer Boris to Starmer.
Anyway off to bed now - back tomorrow hopefully!
The problem is that there are a lot of people - like me, for example - who have no great issues with most of Trump's policies. But who have come to think of him as a danger to the US system of government.
I have little doubt that Biden will be a dreadful President.
But the American system, the checks and balances of Congress and the Presidency and the Courts and Freedom of the Press, and basic God Damn Honesty matters.
The fact that he has become even more deranged as polling day approaches, that he demands Bill Barr looks into charging his political opponents, should worry, maybe terrify, anyone who wants America to be Great. Because greatness means recognising the system matters more than any one person.
Whatever you think are the right policies for the US, I'm staggered anyone can think President Trump is the right person to implement them. And, by the way, that's a massive change from my view in 2016. If I've veered, I don't think I'll be the only one.
Clinton became a better President when he lost his majority, I'd argue Bush Sr did too (albeit it happened later due to 9/11).
Trump did not. Trump thrives on conflict, but successful government in the US system is about expanding your coalition, and forcing the other side to be the one that appears petulant.
Virginia has performed very well economically in the last four years.
That means that - if you want to bet on a Trump surprise - VA would be a place I'd look for it.
Last poll was Biden 48% Trump 43%
https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/surveys/2020-09-24/
https://youtu.be/2pKS2TCd_3c
Don't recall this being the case for Johnson despite Johnson doing a piss poor job and putting TfL into a mess in the first place.
Could it be because he's a Tory?
Has Khan been great? Absolutely not.
Has he been better than Johnson. Absolutely.
That's why he will be re-elected in a landslide.
The best Mayor London actually has had was Livingstone by a country mile.
It's funny he's entirely to blame for TfL mess, yet when the Tories cock up it's just how it is.
Perhaps as usual people are actually arguing from party political points of view and not what is actually best for London?
I'll tell you what, the majority of Londoners approve of Khan, or at worst don't mind him. I can tell you for a fact he is a million times more popular than Johnson and I enjoy the amount of racists he triggers. I will be proud to vote for him a second time.
John McDonnell might have made a good Mayor in years gone by.
Track and Trace GB 12 Billion
Guess which one works best
Its just boring. I don't know why, perhaps because Trump is so ridiculous that they're failing to out-ridiculous him . . . but SNL manages to mock him and have it be funny. Spitting Image just seems to miss the mark for me.
Time to post this - https://youtu.be/LqLbFlPws4U
Enjoy.
Also, I don't get the logic of it being on Britbox, it is supposed to be a topical piss take, so have limited rewatchability, which is exactly the opposite of what you want for a subscription service.
The reason why Netflix paid crazy money for Friends and the Office is they know people will watch those shows again and again and again and thus keep their subscription. Chances of somebody wanting to keep their subscription to watch even a funny Spitting Image episode based on todays events in 3 years time, bugger all.
Not one of the sketches I've seen yet are cutting or funny or anything. I'd rather watch an out of date Daily Show episode than spend my time watching that from the trailers shown.
https://youtu.be/L9uj2GY1MHQ
https://twitter.com/mrkrudd/status/1314697819945492480?s=21
Who do you think the managers at TfL now? Labour partisans? Lot of new blood has arrived recently, lots of ex-Heathrow and Delloite people. Who exactly do you have in mind that will extract these "efficiencies" once free of the iron grip of Sadiq?
The 1.6bn sounds like a lot, but it's required because revenue pretty much dried up in March and hasn't recovered. And TfL turns over a lot in farebox revenue, because the gvmt took away the direct grant.
The c-charge and ULEZ are needed now more than ever as an independent income stream. In fact, they should be extended.
I'm not exactly Sadiq's biggest fan, but jeeze. CCHQ need to pay their trolls more.
https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1314733531034202119?s=21
https://twitter.com/I_MacHunt/status/1314268614623723520?s=20
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1314725027527356417
Though the impressions were a bit better.
I don’t think anyone with no interest at all in politics for its own sake has ever under up elected to such a position.
In a way he has done a good job of exposing the true face of the republican party.
Also, Berlusconi springs to mind as having some similarities, and is someone who sought election to save his own skin. Whereas Trump seems to have got seriously into politics because a black president offended his racist ideology. Though I am also open to the theory that he was in serious financial trouble and saw it as a way out.
As head of government, Trump started out with no real policies or even philosophies other than hostility to China and Mexican immigrants. This allowed him to fall under the influence of the GOP Congress and enact more-or-less mainstream Republican policies. By not starting any more wars, containing North Korea and overseeing the restoration of diplomatic relations between two Gulf states and Israel, Trump might even be regarded as successful in foreign affairs.
As head of state on the other hand, Trump has abandoned the traditional dignity of office. Rather than bringing the nation together, he has aggravated its divisions. It is here, by appalling and offending so many Americans, that Trump has done most harm to his prospects of reelection.
Biden's campaign is deliberately light on policy and is centred on not being Trump. The danger for Biden might be that Americans can hold their noses for four more years with a hated head of state in return for a head of government who has at least some success on the home and overseas fronts, and especially as vaccines and treatments for Covid-19 hove into view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Jj5wXvOIg&feature=emb_title
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnJO4mJDnAU&feature=emb_title
https://blog.4president.org/2020/2020-tv-ad/
This Trump ad is fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWh0_pE8LM8&feature=emb_title