I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
The 538 prediction got Hillary's share almost perfect.
They got Trump's share too low, with Johnson's share too high.
So if there was an error it was on the Libertarian/GOP split not the GOP/Democrat split. Notable that there is extremely little Libertarian vote forecast to be squeezable.
538 slightly overestimated Hillary in 2016 nationally, they forecast she would get 48.5% and she got 48.2%.
You are correct they significantly understimated Trump's share giving him 44.9% and he got 46.1%.
They currently have Biden at 52%, with little third party vote showing now that means Trump's national share could be up to 47/48% if you include 'shy Trump' voters
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You just do not understand this
Covid is increasing in parts of the country at an unacceptable level and tier 2 and 3 restrictions are necessary
However, other parts of the country do not need these measures at present, and by pressing down on the crisis areas the virus should be contained while some parts of the economy are able to continue
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, non-student bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
Yes and that's where government support is necessary, keep them socialising in SU bars, deliveries to campuses and registration of off campus residences for food and other deliveries. This is legitimately the best chance we have of getting anywhere near herd immunity for any cohort and the timing is perfect because we can use antibody serology testing to allow students to go home over the Christmas period safely.
We have an opportunity, hopefully it isn't wasted with unnecessary lockdowns of towns and cities which will cause untold economic and social damage. I was talking to some friends yesterday (in a front room, not a pub) and we all think the UK is now seeing irreparable social scarring because of these measures, the government are succeeding in making people scared of each other and that's not going to go away even after a vaccine, there has been a psychological change in how people see those around them and that's going to be really tough to reverse.
How many universities have a sufficiently well-defined campus for the Eyam approach (enough students get it to have local herd immunity without it spilling out into the local population) to work? My impression from doing UCAS forms is that a significant proportion of uni students continue to live at home, commuting to Uni every day.
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Fair enough take. But politics does not work this way. When things go horribly run under a government the public do not conduct forensic counterfactuals asking themselves if the opposition would have been any better. For example, the financial crash and resulting economic downturn and crisis in the public finances which dominated the GE of 2010. There was no evidence that the situation would have been better or would have been better handled by a Cameron Conservative government rather than Brown's Labour one - the opposite if anything - but this did not prevent a narrative of "Labour's mess" taking root. Similarly here, regardless of how you think Starmer would have performed relative to Johnson, if this pans out as badly as it looks like doing, this government will own it.
I agree. The same thing is true of the ERM in the early 90s. The fact that Brown was if anything more enthusiastic for ERM membership than the Conservatives didn't have any effect on the public mind - the Conservatives still got the blame. People hold governments to a much higher standard than Oppositions. This is justifiable when they have access to more information, such as on military or intelligence matters. But on the economy most statistics are publicly available. I think this virus has fallen somewhere between those two polar cases.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
I was asking what had changed since you last suggested it an hour ago. There's been no new information that has made it "more and more sensible".
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
I was asking what had changed since you last suggested it an hour ago. There's been no new information that has made it "more and more sensible".
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
I was asking what had changed since you last suggested it an hour ago. There's been no new information that has made it "more and more sensible".
More data has been presented by the experts.
But it's not new. Given how much you are on here I had assumed you'd be keeping up to date with the stats that are posted here almost religiously when the daily data dump arrives.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
You still haven't told me by how much the national polling average was wrong by in 2016?
The 538 prediction got Hillary's share almost perfect.
They got Trump's share too low, with Johnson's share too high.
So if there was an error it was on the Libertarian/GOP split not the GOP/Democrat split. Notable that there is extremely little Libertarian vote forecast to be squeezable.
538 slightly overestimated Hillary in 2016 nationally, they forecast she would get 48.5% and she got 48.2%.
You are correct they significantly understimated Trump's share giving him 44.9% and he got 46.1%.
They currently have Biden at 52%, with little third party vote showing now that means Trump's national share could be up to 47/48% if you include 'shy Trump' voters
48.5% to 48.2% is virtually perfect. Well, well within a rounding error for predictions. 44.9% to 46.1% is very close too. Only 1.2% out is still reasonably impressive even for an "error", it isn't "significantly understimating".
By contrast the current prediction is Biden 53.5% and Trump 45.3% - repeating the same so-called "errors" would change this to Biden 53.2% and Trump 46.5% - a 6.7% Biden lead. Considering there is much less third party vote to squeeze there is little reason to think the same "errors" could be repeated let alone bigger "errors" than that as it stands.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
By how much was the polling average wrong in 2016?
The 538 national polling average last time had Trump 3.9 behind and he polled better but only modestly better. He lost the PV by 2.1. This time, Biden has had a stable lead of about 8 for months and this has widened in recent days to 10.3. Trump will not - barring some very Weird Science indeed - win this election if he loses the PV by more than 3. So, for him to have a realistic chance of reelection, either (i) the polls need to be wrong by sufficient to end the polling industry, or (ii) he needs to MOVE these polls by at least 7 points within the space of 3 weeks, or (iii) he needs the polls to be wrong to the limit of MoE in the same direction plus he needs to move them by at least 4 points. This is not imo a Betfair 3.3 chance. It's more like 10.
Labour should absolutely take a position now, it's poor leadership from Starmer at this current time, they have not taken more of a robust position this week.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
Some cities don't really have "student bars". Newcastle for example. There are small bars in each student union but mostly students just use the bars in the city.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
This is where sadly potentially a Tier 3 lockdown may be necessary. If students won't get pissed at houseparties instead of going to the bars, then closing the bars will work in reducing the spread from students to the wider community.
Students will ignore the "advice" if they're advised not to get pissed. They won't just ignore all advice - you don't exactly see large number of students drink driving "because that's what students do", I have more respect for students than you do it seems.
If the advice for students is unrealistic it will be ignored. If you're telling them to live like nuns they're not going to. The advice needs to be realistic. "Stick to house parties for now, avoid bars for now" is more realistic than "don't party at all".
PS of course not all universities are the same. The University of Nottingham for instance has 13 bars on campus. Rather than social distancing, encouraging as many students as possible if they're going out to go there but then to avoid society for the next month will help this burn out quicker amongst students than just pretending they're not going to socialise.
If you level 3 lockdown matriculated students in their own communities, i.e. keep the bars/gyms/restaurants open but ban students from going, you would also have to ban students from working in those settings. So some kind of assistance would still be needed for bars without staff and students deprived of cash? I'm not against this, but the knock on effects are more than you suggest.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
Why do you only post polls that are favourable to Trump? The polling average for Florida had Biden up by between 4% and 5%. Insider Advantage are the ONLY pollster who have Trump up in Florida in the last couple of weeks. The day before the one you cite Quinnipiac University (a more than decient polling outfit) had Biden up by 11. The day after the one you cite, Redfield & Wilton Strategies had Biden up by 5. You never post any of these?
Now, I accept that in 2016 Trafalgar Group were about the only pollster who had Trump winning in Wis and Pa. This year, though, they have Biden ahead in both (albeit by less than others), but their experience means I accept that outliers can be correct. But you are not basing the polls you post on any science I can see, except they are all contrarian.
Last time 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance of winning - a better chance than a penalty in the Premier League not being converted - about 1 in 4. Hardly impossible odds, and they certainly made Trump value on Betfair at the time, but everyone leaps in to kick 538 for their 2016 performance. This year they give him slightly less than a 1 in 6 chance (currently) - literally the roll of a dice. Make of that what you will.
The polling average in 2016 was wrong in key states, it was as you point out the exceptions which were right, hence Trump won the EC when the polling average forecast it for Hillary. You are wrong on Florida, Survey Monkey and ABC News have both had Trump ahead in Florida in the last few weeks for example. Quinnipiac of course wrongly had Hillary ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016.
Had you also bothered to read my post completely you would also have seen I still posted the Baldwin Wallace posts putting Biden ahead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
As I posted Quinnipiac also got 2016 wrong, its final 2016 polls had Clinton ahead in both Florida and Pennsylvania, so what is new? Why should they be trusted in those states this time?
You honestly believe that pollsters just looked at the errors from 2016, shrugged and carried on as before?
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
And as a follow up to this, as far as I'm aware 538 is already applying a dampener on Biden's figures - at least on a national level. Likewise the possibility of polls being 3% out in both directions at the same time in every state is miniscule.
"Probability is just back covering"?1?!?!? Probability is what odds are. Odds, as in betting, you know, as in the subject matter of this site. That is on a par with your assertion that you can avoid the Strait of Hormuz by going round the Cape.
I repeat the question.
What current data, without reference to 2016, do you rely upon in being bullish about Trump's chances?
Five days prior, Trafalgar had Roy Moore winning the 2017 special election by 3.1%. Even a stopped clock etc.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I note on radio phone ins it tends to be older callers who are the most aggrieved at the thought of any 'targetted' lockdown. Remarkably they all seem to be in perfect health for their age and clearly believe they have freakishly good immune systems.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
The latest numbers over the last 24 hours suggest a narrow Biden win, certainly not a Biden landslide, with a chance of a Trump win if he wins Pennsylvania or Wisconsin as Trump is back in front in Ohio, Florida and Georgia.
I left a note for you on the other thread – you seem to post polls late, almost a day late at times.
If you visit 538, you will see them as they appear –– which is better for betting purposes than waiting 24 hours.
All those polls came out within the last 24 hours, there has been no change in the national picture since then and I am quite happy to post them depending on when I am available and will continue to do so.
As I also posted 538 got 2016 completely wrong, so the information I post is just as likely to be of use as them
You don't understand probability. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance in 2016. If you're into rugby union that's about the same as the chances of an average Six Nations goal kicker making a penalty from just inside touch on the 10 metre line. A tough kick but not impossible.
The Princeton Election Consortium is the one with explaining to do after 2016 but even they went into that election with a very good record. In all cases the data was there (as it was with Brexit) but it was misinterpreted. The only arguments I see from Trump rampers on here are "yebbut 2016". What, in the data for this year, gives him more than, say, a 20% chance?
Probablility is just back covering as long as you do not give something a zero percent chance, at the end of the day what matters is who you forecast has over a 50% chance to win or which pollsters correctly identified the winner in enough key state polls to get an EC majority eg Trafalgar in 2016
"Probability is just back covering"?1?!?!? Probability is what odds are. Odds, as in betting, you know, as in the subject matter of this site. That is on a par with your assertion that you can avoid the Strait of Hormuz by going round the Cape.
I repeat the question.
What current data, without reference to 2016, do you rely upon in being bullish about Trump's chances?
Five days prior, Trafalgar had Roy Moore winning the 2017 special election by 3.1%. Even a stopped clock etc.
Trump was not on the ballot in 2017 and even he did not endorse Roy Moore.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
Some cities don't really have "student bars". Newcastle for example. There are small bars in each student union but mostly students just use the bars in the city.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
This is where sadly potentially a Tier 3 lockdown may be necessary. If students won't get pissed at houseparties instead of going to the bars, then closing the bars will work in reducing the spread from students to the wider community.
Students will ignore the "advice" if they're advised not to get pissed. They won't just ignore all advice - you don't exactly see large number of students drink driving "because that's what students do", I have more respect for students than you do it seems.
If the advice for students is unrealistic it will be ignored. If you're telling them to live like nuns they're not going to. The advice needs to be realistic. "Stick to house parties for now, avoid bars for now" is more realistic than "don't party at all".
PS of course not all universities are the same. The University of Nottingham for instance has 13 bars on campus. Rather than social distancing, encouraging as many students as possible if they're going out to go there but then to avoid society for the next month will help this burn out quicker amongst students than just pretending they're not going to socialise.
If you level 3 lockdown matriculated students in their own communities, i.e. keep the bars/gyms/restaurants open but ban students from going, you would also have to ban students from working in those settings. So some kind of assistance would still be needed for bars without staff and students deprived of cash? I'm not against this, but the knock on effects are more than you suggest.
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
A student 'lock in' is impossible to implement and police. How on earth can anyone accurately distinguish a student from the rest of the population?
Since when was a 'lock in' policed? Do you know what a 'lock in' is, it is the polar opposite of policed. The whole point of a 'lock in' was that you stay inside, have fun and don't draw the attention of the police.
I am saying that we should be encouraging students to stay in as much as possible, partying in flats, halls, student bars etc and as much as possible to voluntarily avoid shops, bars, restaurants etc
Instead we sees condemnatory reports of students getting pissed where they live in a flat or hall. That shouldn't be discouraged it should be encouraged. Tell them to go wild in their flats, mates flats, halls etc - have proper student fun. But advise them they can do what they like so long as they stay in but don't go out. We should be encouraging supermarkets etc to be delivering to students accomodations etc, put on cheap booze deals etc and encouraging people to be staying in until this burns through the student community.
Some cities don't really have "student bars". Newcastle for example. There are small bars in each student union but mostly students just use the bars in the city.
The fact is that students will simply ignore the "advice" because that's what students do.
This is where sadly potentially a Tier 3 lockdown may be necessary. If students won't get pissed at houseparties instead of going to the bars, then closing the bars will work in reducing the spread from students to the wider community.
Students will ignore the "advice" if they're advised not to get pissed. They won't just ignore all advice - you don't exactly see large number of students drink driving "because that's what students do", I have more respect for students than you do it seems.
If the advice for students is unrealistic it will be ignored. If you're telling them to live like nuns they're not going to. The advice needs to be realistic. "Stick to house parties for now, avoid bars for now" is more realistic than "don't party at all".
PS of course not all universities are the same. The University of Nottingham for instance has 13 bars on campus. Rather than social distancing, encouraging as many students as possible if they're going out to go there but then to avoid society for the next month will help this burn out quicker amongst students than just pretending they're not going to socialise.
If you level 3 lockdown matriculated students in their own communities, i.e. keep the bars/gyms/restaurants open but ban students from going, you would also have to ban students from working in those settings. So some kind of assistance would still be needed for bars without staff and students deprived of cash? I'm not against this, but the knock on effects are more than you suggest.
I'm not suggesting a ban.
I'm suggesting encouraging students to be able to get pissed in parties as much as possible and encouraging them to avoid going out as much as possible.
That doesn't mean it needs to be perfect. Just another "Swiss Cheese" layer of protection.
Labour should absolutely take a position now, it's poor leadership from Starmer at this current time, they have not taken more of a robust position this week.
Very good article Mike. I suspect there might be a few things there outside, as you said, the hangover fears from 2016, namely:
1. The economic data: As @TSE pointed out, Trump is still ahead on the economy. As I pointed out, Gallup says 56% of Americans feel they are better off than 4 years ago. I think betters are still thinking that voters, at the end of the day will go with their wallets;
2. The potential for a Biden gaffe. Friday for example. Biden's reply to a reporter when asked whether voters deserved to know about what he thought about the packing of the Supreme Court of "no, they don't" is a gift to the Republicans. (Go to 2:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT2_m0F5OQ)
3. The dynamic can change quickly. Maybe a bigger thing is that the dynamic can change very quickly. We saw that with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (and it also happened with Ronald Reagan in 1980). Last week, the talk was all of landslides. Now we have polls showing, at the state level, stabilisation.
4. The known unknowns (or unknown ones). Will there be another October surprise? Will Biden get ill? Will more documents be released around the Christopher Steele case etc
Also, thanks for the link. This might be useful as well re NC. Squinting at it, I think that probably close to 80% of Democrats who have returned their ballots voted at the last election vs 75% for the state, so definitely pull forward but also some new voters. Interesting though that the growth rate for request rate for Mail In Ballots is now slowing down fairly chunkily:
- being too complacent about travel from Europe in January and February - moving OAPs into homes from hospitals without testing them - developing the NHS-X app rather than using Apple/Google technology - closing schools at all, or at least without a clear plan to reopen them.
The first let the virus in in the first place (at least with the numbers and speed it came), the second may have cost 10-20k lives, the third has meant we're unprepared for the second wave and the fourth has blighted a year's schooling for a generation.
However, no. 1 accorded with expert advice, so I think it's mainly the other three I'd hold them responsible for.
And afaik there's no evidence that Prime Minister Starmer would have done anything different on any of them.
Reopening universities looks likes a disaster if you live in a uni town.
No, reopening universities isn't a disaster. We need to see it as an opportunity for young healthy people to acquire herd immunity before Christmas. Universities and students should be supported to stay isolated properly until herd immunity is achieved. It's the perfect setting, especially campus universities. It's almost like a large version of flu camp. I've been told that some universities think that their cohorts are reaching 40-50% immunity already after just a few weeks, when that hits 66% the virus will simply run out of hosts. Aiui early numbers at universities suggest around 80% of infections are asymptomatic (based on random sampling of swabs) and this is currently the best way for students to get back to normal.
The issue is students going to pubs, non-student bars, restaurants and shops etc and spreading it asymptomatically to the rest of the community.
A student 'lock in' is needed.
Yes and that's where government support is necessary, keep them socialising in SU bars, deliveries to campuses and registration of off campus residences for food and other deliveries. This is legitimately the best chance we have of getting anywhere near herd immunity for any cohort and the timing is perfect because we can use antibody serology testing to allow students to go home over the Christmas period safely.
We have an opportunity, hopefully it isn't wasted with unnecessary lockdowns of towns and cities which will cause untold economic and social damage. I was talking to some friends yesterday (in a front room, not a pub) and we all think the UK is now seeing irreparable social scarring because of these measures, the government are succeeding in making people scared of each other and that's not going to go away even after a vaccine, there has been a psychological change in how people see those around them and that's going to be really tough to reverse.
How many universities have a sufficiently well-defined campus for the Eyam approach (enough students get it to have local herd immunity without it spilling out into the local population) to work? My impression from doing UCAS forms is that a significant proportion of uni students continue to live at home, commuting to Uni every day.
Yes, that's definitely true and students who live at home with their parents will need to be responsible or move out if they want the lifestyle. Their parents are ultimately the ones at risk so it's really in their own hands.
As for living out, as I said I think it's going to be the enhanced support from the government to help students stay isolated in halls, within university owned buildings and their own residences for a few weeks while the virus spreads through the student population. I think a good precaution could by mandating mask wearing outdoors nationally for a few weeks.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
Hospitalisation characteristics have changed in the second wave.
ICSARIC have been tracking these characteristics. Their sample size is now above 50% for all UK hospitalisations; for the second wave (from 1st August up to 16th September, so actually before the worst of the hospitalisations in this wave) it's a still chunky 14%.
Median age of those hospitalised has dropped from 74 to 64. Upper quartile is pretty much unchanged at low-eighties. Lower quartile has dropped from 57 to 44.
Distribution is noticeably less skewed to the elderly.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Very good article Mike. I suspect there might be a few things there outside, as you said, the hangover fears from 2016, namely:
1. The economic data: As @TSE pointed out, Trump is still ahead on the economy. As I pointed out, Gallup says 56% of Americans feel they are better off than 4 years ago. I think betters are still thinking that voters, at the end of the day will go with their wallets;
2. The potential for a Biden gaffe. Friday for example. Biden's reply to a reporter when asked whether voters deserved to know about what he thought about the packing of the Supreme Court of "no, they don't" is a gift to the Republicans. (Go to 2:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT2_m0F5OQ)
3. The dynamic can change quickly. Maybe a bigger thing is that the dynamic can change very quickly. We saw that with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (and it also happened with Ronald Reagan in 1980). Last week, the talk was all of landslides. Now we have polls showing, at the state level, stabilisation.
4. The known unknowns (or unknown ones). Will there be another October surprise? Will Biden get ill? Will more documents be released around the Christopher Steele case etc
Also, thanks for the link. This might be useful as well re NC. Squinting at it, I think that probably close to 80% of Democrats who have returned their ballots voted at the last election vs 75% for the state, so definitely pull forward but also some new voters. Interesting though that the growth rate for request rate for Mail In Ballots is now slowing down fairly chunkily:
My suggestion of another lockdown is looking more and more sensible.
What has changed since you last suggested it an hour ago?
We have even more data. Cases are totally out of control.
You got that from one additional day's worth of data?
It confirms what I already said, cases continue to be out of control.
Surprising, given that no new data was actually released at the briefing.
Erh, there was data released? Lots of information from the experts was presented.
Yeah, data from yesterday.
And...? That's more data, as I said cases continue to be out of control.
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
I was asking what had changed since you last suggested it an hour ago. There's been no new information that has made it "more and more sensible".
More data has been presented by the experts.
What data? Seriously, I'd like an answer to the question.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
Fascinating stuff!
Thank you. Obviously if the polling averages start to tighten then a Trump victory looks more likely but the error would have to be much larger than 2016 realistically. Of course that's still possible!
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
Think what you like
That's fine. I was just pointing out hypocrisy from some, when I posted similar videos last year I was told they were irrelevant and not reflective of reality. Now they're pro-Johnson, suddenly silence. Odd that.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
And as a follow up to this, as far as I'm aware 538 is already applying a dampener on Biden's figures - at least on a national level. Likewise the possibility of polls being 3% out in both directions at the same time in every state is miniscule.
NO, it's not miniscule. The point of the Rust Belt polling failure in 2016 was that you had similar demographics across the rust belt so the same demographic mis-weighting is repeated across the states resulting in the same direction/magnitude miss in all the rust belt states.
That was exactly my error in assessing Clinton's chances in 2016. I assumed the state polls were independent of each other. They are not. They are correlated.
Now, Florida is not correlated with the Rust belt, it is independent but PA, WI, MI are connected and have to be seen as a whole.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
Think what you like
That's fine. I was just pointing out hypocrisy from some, when I posted similar videos last year I was told they were irrelevant and not reflective of reality. Now they're pro-Johnson, suddenly silence. Odd that.
Are the same people who commented on those videos actually around at the moment?
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
Think what you like
That's fine. I was just pointing out hypocrisy from some, when I posted similar videos last year I was told they were irrelevant and not reflective of reality. Now they're pro-Johnson, suddenly silence. Odd that.
Who is pro Johnson? Not the Goggleboxers, they were taking the piss out of him on this weeks show
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
TBH 13.4 cases per 100,000 per week is a pretty low chance of meeting someone in your daily life. How low would Burnham have wanted it to go?
Let's work through the counterfactual where Boris eases lockdown in the South but keeps the North under the tough "stay home" restrictions for 3 or 4 more weeks. What would the headlines have been in that scenario? It's completely ridiculous and Burnham would have been the first person blathering on about special treatment for London.
I wondered whether there might be a disproportionate number of Republicans who drop out of the polls between the Registered Voter and Likely Voter screens - shy Trump voters might show up in the polls as Republicans who currently say they might not vote.
I checked the large recent Pew poll - but I can't find the information I was looking for. Darn.
What I did find, which I thought was interesting, was that only 41% would be excited/relieved if Trump was re-elected, compared to 58% who would be disappointed/angry. Would seem like the country has turned against Trump.
But what's this? The same figures for 2016 were 38-60. On this measure Trump has won over some of the American public during the last four years. There is not a greater sense of disgust at Trump than there was in 2016.
The difference is that Biden's scores on this measure are 52-46, which are better than the 47-51 that Clinton received.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
And as a follow up to this, as far as I'm aware 538 is already applying a dampener on Biden's figures - at least on a national level. Likewise the possibility of polls being 3% out in both directions at the same time in every state is miniscule.
So on the same error as 2016 Trump wins Florida and Biden wins Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.1%, on that basis it could still be a nail biting night for Democrats
I think the views of the Gogglebox people are more informative at this stage of the election cycle than opinion polls. They slag off Boris too
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
Funny, I recall Gogglebox being ignored here when I posted clips about Johnson last year.
It's only funny, in the way you intend it, if it were me who ignored (downplayed?) it, and it wasn't
So do you think clips from last year that showed Johnson being slaughtered by Gogglebox were useful or not? I would tend to think not.
Were they at this stage of the Electoral cycle?
Why should it matter? It's like going to Twitter for your hot takes.
No, the gogglebox crew are much less politically engaged than those on twitter
Then why are their opinions now more relevant than last year? Is it perhaps because they say something you agree with?
I didn't say anything about their opinions from last year!
Do you think their opinions in the run up to the election (not during it, before) are relevant, bearing in mind they were absolutely destroying Johnson?
I didn't see it, so can't really comment one way or the other. But they are slaughtering him now, and I think that is relevant
They were slaughtering Johnson and he won in a landslide. Therefore I think their opinions on Starmer are perhaps not very relevant, to be honest.
Think what you like
That's fine. I was just pointing out hypocrisy from some, when I posted similar videos last year I was told they were irrelevant and not reflective of reality. Now they're pro-Johnson, suddenly silence. Odd that.
Who is pro Johnson? Not the Goggleboxers, they were taking the piss out of him on this weeks show
Who are these "some"? Name names!
Why on Earth are people tagging your post off topic? Silly people.
People HERE, were saying Gogglebox was irrelevant when I posted clips last year of them destroying Johnson. My point is now that there are clips destroying Keir, they're suddenly relevant. I get it, Tories will Tory, Labour will Labour.
I (now) go by polling, it got 2019 right. Gogglebox did not.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
And as a follow up to this, as far as I'm aware 538 is already applying a dampener on Biden's figures - at least on a national level. Likewise the possibility of polls being 3% out in both directions at the same time in every state is miniscule.
NO, it's not miniscule. The point of the Rust Belt polling failure in 2016 was that you had similar demographics across the rust belt so the same demographic mis-weighting is repeated across the states resulting in the same direction/magnitude miss in all the rust belt states.
That was exactly my error in assessing Clinton's chances in 2016. I assumed the state polls were independent of each other. They are not. They are correlated.
Now, Florida is not correlated with the Rust belt, it is independent but PA, WI, MI are connected and have to be seen as a whole.
In Florida it was Trump (+1.5%) Clinton (-0.3%) In Michigan it was Trump (+3.3%) Clinton (-1.1%) In Pennsylvania it was Trump (+3%) Clinton (-1.4%) In Wisconsin it was Trump (+2.9%) Clinton (-3.1%)
I have assumed Trump (+3.3%) and Biden (-3.1%), which you may note only got close to happening in Wisconsin in 2016.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
I think privately, they have conceded another lockdown is coming - and I could see that from their faces.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
TBH 13.4 cases per 100,000 per week is a pretty low chance of meeting someone in your daily life. How low would Burnham have wanted it to go?
Exactly. This is a non-runner. God knows what Van Tam is playing at.
Edit: A more relevant discussion would be whether the North had it less seriously last time and therefore there is less immunity around.
Exactly, London has hit 20% immunity. The R requirement for exponential growth is just a lot higher than everywhere else in the country. Additionally the people who are likely to interact with each other (younger) probably have immunity rates north of 30%. The virus doesn't have as many potential hosts to infect.
I wouldn't be surprised if parts of zone 2 and 3 London have already achieved herd immunity, especially those areas close to transport hubs like Heathrow or St Pancras.
Pennsylvania Clinton 48.9 (47.5) Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin Clinton 49.6 (46.5) Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
And as a follow up to this, as far as I'm aware 538 is already applying a dampener on Biden's figures - at least on a national level. Likewise the possibility of polls being 3% out in both directions at the same time in every state is miniscule.
So on the same error as 2016 Trump wins Florida and Biden wins Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 0.1%, on that basis it could still be a nail biting night for Democrats
Yes but that kind of error from the polls only occurred in Wisconsin. The chance of the same error happening in EVERY state is tiny. It didn't even happen in 2016.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
I think privately, they have conceded another lockdown is coming - and I could see that from their faces.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
Except I'm not the one claiming to know what they think, so the fact I don't know for sure is not relevant.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
I think privately, they have conceded another lockdown is coming - and I could see that from their faces.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
I think from their faces they were trying to portray a "this is serious" image.
I repeat for the third or fourth time my question: If a national lockdown is avoided and R comes back down below 1 then will you give credit to the Government for achieving what you seem to think is impossible to achieve?
How many have been closed down? Reading the thread there was one in that stadium in Wales, but from the tweet it sounds like dozens have been dismantled.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
I think privately, they have conceded another lockdown is coming - and I could see that from their faces.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
Except I'm not the one claiming to know what they think, so the fact I don't know for sure is not relevant.
I think they have conceded it privately, I don't know for sure. It's my opinion.
I think from the experts, I could see it in their faces, the cases are out of control and getting worse and the only course of action left is a lockdown.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
If that is the case, why did they not say ' we need a national lockdown'? You seem desperate to have one for some reason. We are walking a tight-rope - trying to maintain as much of the economy and education as possible, while keeping cases as low as we can, while we wait for the vaccine(s). You want to go hard on the virus - I understand that, but this ignores the evident harms caused by this harshest of all measures. How much mental health trauma, missed cancer diagnosis, business failure are you happy to see for your National Lockdown?
I do think we need a national lockdown but I could see from their faces the data was looking grim and they had surely conceded privately another lockdown is coming.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
Based on what are you claiming that they have already privately conceded it? You may want them to have done so, but that does not mean it actually happened.
I could see it from their faces, that's what I think they've conceded privately. Of course I don't know for sure.
OK, so it's a projection of your own opinion more than anything.
Well it's what I think but you disagree and that's fine, no worries.
My issue isn't with what you think, it's that you are claiming to know what they are thinking privately.
I think privately, they have conceded another lockdown is coming - and I could see that from their faces.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
I think from their faces they were trying to portray a "this is serious" image.
I repeat for the third or fourth time my question: If a national lockdown is avoided and R comes back down below 1 then will you give credit to the Government for achieving what you seem to think is impossible to achieve?
That's your opinion, I have mine. Just as welcome to air it as you.
Rather than cluttering the board with it, I will leave it there.
I'm not sure what point is being made by the cartoon here. The picture depicts a meeting up, hand holding aside - which is more limited, which will remain allowable in most circumstances between most people.
Comments
"Last week, Starmer raised the issue of the 10 p.m. curfew at Prime Minister's Questions. He asked Johnson whether he could provide any scientific evidence to back up the measure. Johnson struggled to do so. To those sitting in the Commons chamber, it was seen as a turning point. With a vote on maintaining the 10 p.m. curfew due this week, there was a chance that Labour could work with rebel Tory MPs to reject the measure. However, not long after the session, Starmer confirmed that his party would support maintaining it. A similar thing happened with the rule of six — a Labour shadow health minister criticised it at the despatch box and then Labour backed it anyway.
On the Labour benches the concern is that Starmer could develop a reputation for never taking a side or fence-sitting. A taste of this came in last month's Gogglebox verdict on his Labour conference speech where the various sofa critics asked if he was even Labour"
https://twitter.com/SpecCoffeeHouse/status/1315609909279547393?s=20
Because if so they will have done what you consider to be impossible? Presumably they will deserve a ton of credit for that?
You are correct they significantly understimated Trump's share giving him 44.9% and he got 46.1%.
They currently have Biden at 52%, with little third party vote showing now that means Trump's national share could be up to 47/48% if you include 'shy Trump' voters
Covid is increasing in parts of the country at an unacceptable level and tier 2 and 3 restrictions are necessary
However, other parts of the country do not need these measures at present, and by pressing down on the crisis areas the virus should be contained while some parts of the economy are able to continue
Nobody in that conference suggested that
It's plainly clear that the experts think a national lockdown is necessary, you can see it on their faces. We have totally failed to get a grip on this.
(Real result in brackets)
Presidency
Clinton 48.5 (48.2)
Trump 44.9 (46.1)
Florida
Clinton 48.1 (47.8)
Trump 47.5 (49.0)
Michigan
Clinton 48.4 (47.3)
Trump 44.2 (47.5)
Pennsylvania
Clinton 48.9 (47.5)
Trump 45.2 (48.2)
Wisconsin
Clinton 49.6 (46.5)
Trump 44.3 (47.2)
So let's take the worst case scenario for Biden - a Michigan style error on Trump (+3.3%) and a Wisconsin style error on Biden (-3.1%). Polling average first, calculated error in brackets.
Presidency
Biden 53.5 (50.4) ⭐️
Trump 45.3 (48.6)
Florida
Biden 51.4 (48.3)
Trump 47.8 (51.1) ⭐️
Michigan
Biden 53.5 (50.4) ⭐️
Trump 45.4 (48.7)
Pennsylvania
Biden 52.9 (49.8) ⭐️
Trump 46.4 (49.7)
Wisconsin
Biden 52.8 (49.7) ⭐️
Trump 46.3 (49.6)
The numbers do not lie. Even if the worst possible polling deviations from 2016 are applied to these swing states, Biden still wins.
44.9% to 46.1% is very close too. Only 1.2% out is still reasonably impressive even for an "error", it isn't "significantly understimating".
By contrast the current prediction is Biden 53.5% and Trump 45.3% - repeating the same so-called "errors" would change this to Biden 53.2% and Trump 46.5% - a 6.7% Biden lead. Considering there is much less third party vote to squeeze there is little reason to think the same "errors" could be repeated let alone bigger "errors" than that as it stands.
As I said previously, I wish it wasn't the case. But it's now inevitable.
You are losing credibility
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568274917/removing-any-qualifications-trump-endorses-roy-moore?t=1602502624848
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/us/politics/roy-moore-donald-trump.html
I'm suggesting encouraging students to be able to get pissed in parties as much as possible and encouraging them to avoid going out as much as possible.
That doesn't mean it needs to be perfect. Just another "Swiss Cheese" layer of protection.
1. The economic data: As @TSE pointed out, Trump is still ahead on the economy. As I pointed out, Gallup says 56% of Americans feel they are better off than 4 years ago. I think betters are still thinking that voters, at the end of the day will go with their wallets;
2. The potential for a Biden gaffe. Friday for example. Biden's reply to a reporter when asked whether voters deserved to know about what he thought about the packing of the Supreme Court of "no, they don't" is a gift to the Republicans. (Go to 2:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWT2_m0F5OQ)
3. The dynamic can change quickly. Maybe a bigger thing is that the dynamic can change very quickly. We saw that with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 (and it also happened with Ronald Reagan in 1980). Last week, the talk was all of landslides. Now we have polls showing, at the state level, stabilisation.
4. The known unknowns (or unknown ones). Will there be another October surprise? Will Biden get ill? Will more documents be released around the Christopher Steele case etc
Also, thanks for the link. This might be useful as well re NC. Squinting at it, I think that probably close to 80% of Democrats who have returned their ballots voted at the last election vs 75% for the state, so definitely pull forward but also some new voters. Interesting though that the growth rate for request rate for Mail In Ballots is now slowing down fairly chunkily:
https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1315330624551563269
As for living out, as I said I think it's going to be the enhanced support from the government to help students stay isolated in halls, within university owned buildings and their own residences for a few weeks while the virus spreads through the student population. I think a good precaution could by mandating mask wearing outdoors nationally for a few weeks.
25-44 going up first THEN kids a week later.
ICSARIC have been tracking these characteristics. Their sample size is now above 50% for all UK hospitalisations; for the second wave (from 1st August up to 16th September, so actually before the worst of the hospitalisations in this wave) it's a still chunky 14%.
Median age of those hospitalised has dropped from 74 to 64.
Upper quartile is pretty much unchanged at low-eighties.
Lower quartile has dropped from 57 to 44.
Distribution is noticeably less skewed to the elderly.
Why would they not say that? Well not to undermine the PM, which they have been told off for doing before.
We need another lockdown because it's necessary. Cases are totally out of control and the current measures are not working.
That was exactly my error in assessing Clinton's chances in 2016. I assumed the state polls were independent of each other. They are not. They are correlated.
Now, Florida is not correlated with the Rust belt, it is independent but PA, WI, MI are connected and have to be seen as a whole.
Even he would keep hospitality open.
It does see as if government wants to be seen to "do something", if if that something is not supported by the evidence.
Who are these "some"? Name names!
Edit: A more relevant discussion would be whether the North had it less seriously last time and therefore there is less immunity around.
Threader topic?
I checked the large recent Pew poll - but I can't find the information I was looking for. Darn.
What I did find, which I thought was interesting, was that only 41% would be excited/relieved if Trump was re-elected, compared to 58% who would be disappointed/angry. Would seem like the country has turned against Trump.
But what's this? The same figures for 2016 were 38-60. On this measure Trump has won over some of the American public during the last four years. There is not a greater sense of disgust at Trump than there was in 2016.
The difference is that Biden's scores on this measure are 52-46, which are better than the 47-51 that Clinton received.
https://www.bbc.com/news/54250626
People HERE, were saying Gogglebox was irrelevant when I posted clips last year of them destroying Johnson. My point is now that there are clips destroying Keir, they're suddenly relevant. I get it, Tories will Tory, Labour will Labour.
I (now) go by polling, it got 2019 right. Gogglebox did not.
In Michigan it was Trump (+3.3%) Clinton (-1.1%)
In Pennsylvania it was Trump (+3%) Clinton (-1.4%)
In Wisconsin it was Trump (+2.9%) Clinton (-3.1%)
I have assumed Trump (+3.3%) and Biden (-3.1%), which you may note only got close to happening in Wisconsin in 2016.
I don't know for sure, neither do you. It's what I think and you disagree. No worries.
I don't think we've ever agreed about anything, it's all in good fun.
I wouldn't be surprised if parts of zone 2 and 3 London have already achieved herd immunity, especially those areas close to transport hubs like Heathrow or St Pancras.
I repeat for the third or fourth time my question: If a national lockdown is avoided and R comes back down below 1 then will you give credit to the Government for achieving what you seem to think is impossible to achieve?
I hope Biden wins, I am however not sure.
All the best.
Which is what Wiki says happened to one of them.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Nightingale_Hospitals
And the ones that are being decommissioned are in Scotland and Wales - so not, technically
"Nightingale", but "Louisa Jordan" and "Dragon heart"
Rather than cluttering the board with it, I will leave it there.