Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Pressure of the Populist Right – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,717

    From last night, does anyone know what Hancock means about Macron praising our test and trace?

    I can't imagine that was high on Macron's priority list so seems an odd thing for Hancock to have said?

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1316455895434498055

    https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1316652154426478594?s=09
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,315
    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    I do hope @felix liked your post!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,805

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Oh my goodness, are you the Rogerdamus? I can assure you your legend has only grown in the retelling...
  • Cyclefree said:

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    I do hope @felix liked your post!
    I bet a lot of it is by accident. If I'm on my phone, I often like, quote, flag or off topic due to fat finger syndrome!
  • DAlexanderDAlexander Posts: 815
    edited October 2020
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
    Because I wasn't questioning the meaning of the words, but rather those branding anything they don't like as populist. So his comparison was completely irrelevant.

    But yes the fact that you continue to completely ignore this inconvenient part is very tedious indeed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But if state polls have become more accurate as you say then comparing 2020 (when we think they might be broadly right) with 2016 (when we know they were biased against Trump) is a false comparison. A 3% lead for Clinton in 2016 was actually a 1% lead for Trump, whereas a 3% lead for Biden is most likely actually a 3% lead for Biden. So saying that Biden is in the same position as Clinton was is incorrect.
    If you look at Biden's projected winning margin on 538 in the key 6 swing states, and apply the same polling misses from 2016 (actual winning margin vs eve of poll projections from 538) then he still wins all of them except NC. So even in the unlikely scenario where the state pollsters have learned nothing and make the same errors as 4 years ago, Biden still wins handsomely.
    For Trump to win you'd have to see either the polls narrowing by a couple of %-pts or more or even bigger polling misses in Trump's favour than in 2016 or more likely a combination of the two. As things stand now he is a real longshot.
    RCP National

    Biden 51.5% Trump 42.3%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    RCP Key Battleground States

    Biden 49.4% Trump 44.5%

    In each of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona Biden's current lead is still smaller than his national popular vote lead

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
  • HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But if state polls have become more accurate as you say then comparing 2020 (when we think they might be broadly right) with 2016 (when we know they were biased against Trump) is a false comparison. A 3% lead for Clinton in 2016 was actually a 1% lead for Trump, whereas a 3% lead for Biden is most likely actually a 3% lead for Biden. So saying that Biden is in the same position as Clinton was is incorrect.
    If you look at Biden's projected winning margin on 538 in the key 6 swing states, and apply the same polling misses from 2016 (actual winning margin vs eve of poll projections from 538) then he still wins all of them except NC. So even in the unlikely scenario where the state pollsters have learned nothing and make the same errors as 4 years ago, Biden still wins handsomely.
    For Trump to win you'd have to see either the polls narrowing by a couple of %-pts or more or even bigger polling misses in Trump's favour than in 2016 or more likely a combination of the two. As things stand now he is a real longshot.
    RCP National

    Biden 51.5% Trump 42.3%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    RCP Key Battleground States

    Biden 49.4% Trump 44.5%

    In each of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona Biden's current lead is still smaller than his national popular vote lead

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
    Isn't that a case of 'no s**t Sherlock'?

    Each of those are states Trump won last time despite losing the popular vote. Its well understood that if they're tied on popular vote then Trump probably wins, but not at a 9% deficit.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,851
    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Has someone else been posting under your name?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    Dura_Ace said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Whoa. Mind blown. This changes everything. I was saving this for Casino's Xmas present but now I'm going to wear it myself.


    Disappointed to see Darren Gough on there.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
    Even on its own terms this argument does not work. A 70/30 landslide might ground the accusation "you just don't like the fact that it's popular." 52/48, less so. And similarly Trump will still be a populist if he gets 25% of the popular vote come November.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    Populist has an actual meaning, and it's not always derogatory. Broadly it means things that sound good to non-experts and are opposed by experts.

    Often this is a bad: The reason experts support X even though it sounds bad to uninformed voters is because X works better than uninformed people think it does.

    But there are times when the experts genuinely are in an echo chamber, or have their own interests that are opposed to the interests of many of the voters. An example a lot of people who dislike UK/US populism would support the populists would be Thailand: There's an anti-democratic elite running the country in their own interests, and a populist movement opposed to them.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,805

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
    Because I wasn't questioning the meaning of the words, but rather those branding anything they don't like as populist. So his comparison was completely irrelevant.

    But yes the fact that you continue to completely ignore this inconvenient part is very tedious indeed.
    I love the way you say that I 'continue to completely ignore the inconvenient part' when I haven't actually responded once let alone continuingly. You don't even seem to know who you are arguing with.

    My only post was to point out that 'sexy vs sexist' was a witty post and your response 'tedious vs tedium' very much wasn't.

    That was my first post!

    You seem to be looking for a fight with anyone. For all you know I might actually agree with you (I don't).
  • Great piece. But doesn't it just illustrate what a giant among pygmies Nigel was? Not one of the oddballs Alistair mentioned could have filled the void had Nigel never existed. In some ways we should be thankful for Boris - I'm sure great swathes of the Tory right would have flocked to TBP had Boris not provided a rival attraction. We'd probably have PM Farage already.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Oh my goodness, are you the Rogerdamus? I can assure you your legend has only grown in the retelling...
    .......Another is guessing who the old posters are with the new names. 'BluestBlue' should be easy-most of the likely candidates dropped out when Johnson took over-but I admit i'm struggling.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Oh my goodness, are you the Rogerdamus? I can assure you your legend has only grown in the retelling...
    .......Another is guessing who the old posters are with the new names. 'BluestBlue' should be easy-most of the likely candidates dropped out when Johnson took over-but I admit i'm struggling.
    It's really hard to guess. Really, really hard :wink:
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But if state polls have become more accurate as you say then comparing 2020 (when we think they might be broadly right) with 2016 (when we know they were biased against Trump) is a false comparison. A 3% lead for Clinton in 2016 was actually a 1% lead for Trump, whereas a 3% lead for Biden is most likely actually a 3% lead for Biden. So saying that Biden is in the same position as Clinton was is incorrect.
    If you look at Biden's projected winning margin on 538 in the key 6 swing states, and apply the same polling misses from 2016 (actual winning margin vs eve of poll projections from 538) then he still wins all of them except NC. So even in the unlikely scenario where the state pollsters have learned nothing and make the same errors as 4 years ago, Biden still wins handsomely.
    For Trump to win you'd have to see either the polls narrowing by a couple of %-pts or more or even bigger polling misses in Trump's favour than in 2016 or more likely a combination of the two. As things stand now he is a real longshot.
    RCP National

    Biden 51.5% Trump 42.3%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    RCP Key Battleground States

    Biden 49.4% Trump 44.5%

    In each of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona Biden's current lead is still smaller than his national popular vote lead

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
    All this means is that Biden's national vote share is skewed by a few outliers, mostly California and New York. Not exactly news. Once you accept that, of course Biden's national vote share is going to be higher than the swing states.

    Look at it the other way. Across 6 important states Biden has a 5-point lead. In one state you can just about say "too close to call", accross 6 swing states it is a clear lead.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    I see unpleasant personal comments are still your principle mode of argument.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 341
    Mango said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Actually that's exactly what its supposed to be like.

    "intensifying the battles over the future of the UK" is also known as "taking back control".
    The more one deploys cretinisms like "take back control", the more one outs oneself as a mindless serf who is destined to lick up crumbs from the christmas top table before being euthanised before January is out.
    Do "mindless serfs" also parrot "circuit breaker" when all they really mean is stricter lockdown.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Has someone else been posting under your name?
    I don't think so.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    538 has Georgia as a 50-50 toss up.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Foxy said:

    From last night, does anyone know what Hancock means about Macron praising our test and trace?

    I can't imagine that was high on Macron's priority list so seems an odd thing for Hancock to have said?

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1316455895434498055

    https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1316652154426478594?s=09
    I think Hancock's point is that the UK might be crap, but France is crapper. This makes people feel good. It doesn't have to be true.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,002
    Dominic Cummings, addressing staff gathered in “mission control” on Tuesday morning, was blunt about the motivation behind Downing Street’s new outpost in the heart of the Cabinet Office.

    The response to the Covid-19 crisis had too often been a “shitshow”, he said. This new unit would try to put an end to any “miscommunication” between the political and administrative arms of government.


    How is that working out?

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1316679383298572288
  • As much as Johnson has been much stronger than May, thank goodness, he's still exceptionally polite with the EU for not calling out eg fish as the cherrypicking that it is.

    But "tax". What has "tax" got to do with it? Our tax rates should be none of their business.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    felix said:

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    I see unpleasant personal comments are still your principle mode of argument.
    Sorry felix that wasn't meant to be unpleasant. The more off the wall the poster the more I like reading them! Maybe you do too?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    Scott_xP said:
    Why is Genetic Modification suddenly the twitter fad? :wink:
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    Strident anti-masker criticises Labour Mayor, well what an informative post.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
  • kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
    Because I wasn't questioning the meaning of the words, but rather those branding anything they don't like as populist. So his comparison was completely irrelevant.

    But yes the fact that you continue to completely ignore this inconvenient part is very tedious indeed.
    I love the way you say that I 'continue to completely ignore the inconvenient part' when I haven't actually responded once let alone continuingly. You don't even seem to know who you are arguing with.

    My only post was to point out that 'sexy vs sexist' was a witty post and your response 'tedious vs tedium' very much wasn't.

    That was my first post!

    You seem to be looking for a fight with anyone. For all you know I might actually agree with you (I don't).
    You liked one of the first responses, so I assumed you read all the posts and still didn't understand. If not then I apologise!

    Although my reply was clearly funnier :D
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,798
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But if state polls have become more accurate as you say then comparing 2020 (when we think they might be broadly right) with 2016 (when we know they were biased against Trump) is a false comparison. A 3% lead for Clinton in 2016 was actually a 1% lead for Trump, whereas a 3% lead for Biden is most likely actually a 3% lead for Biden. So saying that Biden is in the same position as Clinton was is incorrect.
    If you look at Biden's projected winning margin on 538 in the key 6 swing states, and apply the same polling misses from 2016 (actual winning margin vs eve of poll projections from 538) then he still wins all of them except NC. So even in the unlikely scenario where the state pollsters have learned nothing and make the same errors as 4 years ago, Biden still wins handsomely.
    For Trump to win you'd have to see either the polls narrowing by a couple of %-pts or more or even bigger polling misses in Trump's favour than in 2016 or more likely a combination of the two. As things stand now he is a real longshot.
    RCP National

    Biden 51.5% Trump 42.3%
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

    RCP Key Battleground States

    Biden 49.4% Trump 44.5%

    In each of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona Biden's current lead is still smaller than his national popular vote lead

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/trump-vs-biden-top-battleground-states/
    "In each of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona Biden's current lead is still smaller than his national popular vote lead"

    As others have noted, what relevance is this? The way votes are distributed and the experience of 2016 tells you that Biden will have less of a lead in these swing states than in national vote share.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    It's pretty clear what the deal is. The UK signs up to general principles on State Aid etc, doesn't have to agree future adherence to EU rules but may be sanctioned any time the EU decides the UK has stepped out of line. The EU will use that as a threat because they are not interested in after the fact remediation. If the UK agrees that, there is a haggle over fish where the EU gets less access than before but retains most of what it had before.

    The deal makes sense from a UK PoV because it doesn't really lose anything against a No Deal alternative, so it might as well bank the thin advantages. It can then trumpet the "win" on fishing. The fish upside is a miniscule offset to the massive Brexit downsides, but it is an upside nevertheless.

    Ultimately whether there is a deal depends on Johnson's assessment of self-interest, which is likely to be a very short term calculation. Does it or does it not help him over the next month or so?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065

    HYUFD said:

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316558205439311874

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316559585411575813

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316562092388945923

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316561837203304448

    TL;DR no big change anywhere, everyone has already made up their mind.

    National GE
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Texas
    Trump 51% (+1)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Ohio
    Trump 51% (-)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Florida
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Iowa
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Colorado
    Biden 57% (-)
    Trump 41% (-)

    Virginia
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Maine
    Biden 56% (-)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Minnesota
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    New Hampshire
    Biden 55% (+1)
    Trump 44% (-)

    Wisconsin
    Biden 54% (-)
    Trump 44% (-)

    New Mexico
    Biden 53% (-)
    Trump 45% (-1)

    Michigan
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Pennsylvania
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-1)

    North Carolina
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 47% (+1)

    Nevada
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 47% (-)

    Arizona
    Biden 51% (-)
    Trump 48% (+1)

    Georgia
    Biden 50% (+1)
    Trump 49% (-)
    How does that lot work out in EC votes?
    Which after all is what matters.
    On those polls, it works out as Biden on around 321. 350 if he wins Florida.
    So Biden wins. And either Trump accepts or goes to the Courts.

    Incidentally, he talks about the military supporting him, but, reading the General's remarks here are there I doubt whether any arm of the military would move to keep him in office. Personally I suspect that, like all bullies, he'll yell and scream but ultimately give up.
    The idea that the US military will keep Trump in power if he loses the election is obviously absurd (as has been said many times on PB).

    Even after Trump has given up he'll still be "screaming" about it all. It's about the only thing he does well.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Lockdowns aren’t not the solution, sensible restrictions, policed and supported by the public and not constantly changed would be more effective, vulnerable people should assess their own risks and behave accordingly. Maybe some accommodation for shopping and eating out times for those most at risk so they don’t become totally isolated..
    Politicians are making fools of themselves on both sides, leaking, arguing no attempt at consensus, they come over as dysfunctional idiots with both leaders flip flopping by the hour.
    How we managed to develop a political class so incompetent is beyond belief.
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    538 thinks Florida leans 3% Republican, so if Biden is up 9% nationally he should be up 6% in Florida?
  • Scott_xP said:
    Quite, it is the governments decision not the local MPs or the mayor. The local politicians have said what they need to support it. Now is the time for the central government to decide to do it anyway with 1) no further support 2) support the locals have asked for 3) something in between.

    Continuous negotiations hoping the local politicians eventually back down is spineless and dangerous when the virus is spreading rapidly.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    Test
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    Roger said:

    felix said:

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    I see unpleasant personal comments are still your principle mode of argument.
    Sorry felix that wasn't meant to be unpleasant. The more off the wall the poster the more I like reading them! Maybe you do too?
    I 'liked' your comment so..
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    nichomar said:

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Lockdowns aren’t not the solution, sensible restrictions, policed and supported by the public and not constantly changed would be more effective, vulnerable people should assess their own risks and behave accordingly. Maybe some accommodation for shopping and eating out times for those most at risk so they don’t become totally isolated..
    Politicians are making fools of themselves on both sides, leaking, arguing no attempt at consensus, they come over as dysfunctional idiots with both leaders flip flopping by the hour.
    How we managed to develop a political class so incompetent is beyond belief.
    Because every tiny detail af anything they do is released on twitter instantly, look at this site this morning. Imagine having a job like that
  • eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316558205439311874

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316559585411575813

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316562092388945923

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316561837203304448

    TL;DR no big change anywhere, everyone has already made up their mind.

    National GE
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Texas
    Trump 51% (+1)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Ohio
    Trump 51% (-)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Florida
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Iowa
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Colorado
    Biden 57% (-)
    Trump 41% (-)

    Virginia
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Maine
    Biden 56% (-)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Minnesota
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    New Hampshire
    Biden 55% (+1)
    Trump 44% (-)

    Wisconsin
    Biden 54% (-)
    Trump 44% (-)

    New Mexico
    Biden 53% (-)
    Trump 45% (-1)

    Michigan
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Pennsylvania
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-1)

    North Carolina
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 47% (+1)

    Nevada
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 47% (-)

    Arizona
    Biden 51% (-)
    Trump 48% (+1)

    Georgia
    Biden 50% (+1)
    Trump 49% (-)
    How does that lot work out in EC votes?
    Which after all is what matters.
    On those polls, it works out as Biden on around 321. 350 if he wins Florida.
    So Biden wins. And either Trump accepts or goes to the Courts.

    Incidentally, he talks about the military supporting him, but, reading the General's remarks here are there I doubt whether any arm of the military would move to keep him in office. Personally I suspect that, like all bullies, he'll yell and scream but ultimately give up.
    The idea that the US military will keep Trump in power if he loses the election is obviously absurd (as has been said many times on PB).

    Even after Trump has given up he'll still be "screaming" about it all. It's about the only thing he does well.
    Yes its the RIGGED supreme court that will keep him in power!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    rawzer said:

    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    538 thinks Florida leans 3% Republican, so if Biden is up 9% nationally he should be up 6% in Florida?
    Basically yes.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Polling shows the elderly support lockdown. They also supported Brexit. I doubt if opposing lockdown will garner much support from that group if the next 'populist' narrative goes for that agenda.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    FYI, just looking at the early votes data, one thing I might be concerned about if I was a Democrat in Michigan is that the requests for mail in ballots in Wayne County (which includes Detroit and is the biggest county) are around 10% below other Democrat-leaning areas in the states. The returned / accepted rate is also low compared with other counties (but similar to Oakland, another big Democrat county). To me (and I'm sure I will be accused of bias), that would raise questions about voter enthusiasm in Detroit

    (Before anyone says it, I would expect Republican counties generally to have lower requests for mail in ballots given Trump's comments so comparing Wayne with Republican counties is probably not appropriate.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,805

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    kjh said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    I've noticed the word "popular" is replaced by "populist" among the chattering classes when it is about things that they disapprove of.

    If the things you are trying to sell aren't popular, maybe it's because they are a bit shit.

    Thats original!
    Well then you should have come up with a better counter argument by now then.
    Pretending you don't know the difference between populist and popular because they sound similar does not warrant a better response I am afraid.
    lol so no difference then.

    Just as I suspected.
    Nothing gets past you. Can we do "sexist" vs "sexy" next?
    I think for you "tedious" and "tedium" might be better.
    Do we assume that is a concession re the argument then?
    I've seen no counter argument to the suggestion that "populist" is just another way of shouting down arguments without engaging with them. It's only views they disagree with that are branded populist. If not then list some thing you agree with that are populist.

    I've noticed its use a lot more since as calling everyone under the sun racist is no longer working.
    populist and popular are different words with different meanings
    sexy and sexist was a rather good post to demonstrate the point
    replying with tedious and tedium to insult the person was not very good because they do have the same meaning
    Because I wasn't questioning the meaning of the words, but rather those branding anything they don't like as populist. So his comparison was completely irrelevant.

    But yes the fact that you continue to completely ignore this inconvenient part is very tedious indeed.
    I love the way you say that I 'continue to completely ignore the inconvenient part' when I haven't actually responded once let alone continuingly. You don't even seem to know who you are arguing with.

    My only post was to point out that 'sexy vs sexist' was a witty post and your response 'tedious vs tedium' very much wasn't.

    That was my first post!

    You seem to be looking for a fight with anyone. For all you know I might actually agree with you (I don't).
    You liked one of the first responses, so I assumed you read all the posts and still didn't understand. If not then I apologise!

    Although my reply was clearly funnier :D
    Did I? I have no memory of that and it was not long ago. I remember liking the Sexy vs Sexist post because I thought it clever and witty. The sort of 'I wish I thought of that' post.

    Anyway cheers for that reply.

  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    MrEd said:

    rawzer said:

    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    538 thinks Florida leans 3% Republican, so if Biden is up 9% nationally he should be up 6% in Florida?
    Basically yes.
    they think he is up 4.1%, so 2% polling error doesn't sound enormous. The 9% national lead, the 4.1% Florida lead and the 3% Rep lean figures could all be off of course - but it doesnt seem they are massively out of line with one another
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,463
    felix said:

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Polling shows the elderly support lockdown. They also supported Brexit. I doubt if opposing lockdown will garner much support from that group if the next 'populist' narrative goes for that agenda.
    There's a difference between 'supporting' lockdown and thinking it's necessary. And while you're right about the polls, 'most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group.' didn't support Brexit. But I agree 'opposing' lockdown, in the sense of supporting a free-for-all wouldn't be popular with, again, 'most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group.'

    Depends, of course, how the question is asked.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    I have to say, and yes this does agree with my book ! that the Democrat numbers in the WOW suburbs are as bad as that early vote track makes out. Democrat postals are ahead of their registrations everywhere else we know about party affiliation. I think it's more likely to be an artifact of their methodology where they don't have registration data provided.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,426
    edited October 2020
    eristdoof said:

    HYUFD said:

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316558205439311874

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316559585411575813

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316562092388945923

    twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1316561837203304448

    TL;DR no big change anywhere, everyone has already made up their mind.

    National GE
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Texas
    Trump 51% (+1)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Ohio
    Trump 51% (-)
    Biden 47% (-)

    Florida
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Iowa
    Trump 49% (-)
    Biden 49% (-)

    Colorado
    Biden 57% (-)
    Trump 41% (-)

    Virginia
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Maine
    Biden 56% (-)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    Minnesota
    Biden 56% (+1)
    Trump 42% (-1)

    New Hampshire
    Biden 55% (+1)
    Trump 44% (-)

    Wisconsin
    Biden 54% (-)
    Trump 44% (-)

    New Mexico
    Biden 53% (-)
    Trump 45% (-1)

    Michigan
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 46% (-)

    Pennsylvania
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 46% (-1)

    North Carolina
    Biden 52% (-)
    Trump 47% (+1)

    Nevada
    Biden 52% (+1)
    Trump 47% (-)

    Arizona
    Biden 51% (-)
    Trump 48% (+1)

    Georgia
    Biden 50% (+1)
    Trump 49% (-)
    How does that lot work out in EC votes?
    Which after all is what matters.
    On those polls, it works out as Biden on around 321. 350 if he wins Florida.
    So Biden wins. And either Trump accepts or goes to the Courts.

    Incidentally, he talks about the military supporting him, but, reading the General's remarks here are there I doubt whether any arm of the military would move to keep him in office. Personally I suspect that, like all bullies, he'll yell and scream but ultimately give up.
    The idea that the US military will keep Trump in power if he loses the election is obviously absurd (as has been said many times on PB).

    Even after Trump has given up he'll still be "screaming" about it all. It's about the only thing he does well.
    If State officials, legislatures and courts in control of the Republican Party, or intimidated by Trump supporters, certify election results without all the votes being counted, or after votes were prevented from being cast, and this hands the election to Trump, contrary to the will of the people, then the military will support Trump even though he would have lost a free and fair election.

    This is why the worry is about what Trump does, or encourages, before the result is declared. No use protesting about it afterwards.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    CA is polling Biden 62, Trump 31.3 (538).
    2016 was Hillary 61.7, Trump 31.6 (Wikipedia).

    So Biden's swing in CA is zero.

    Biden's big swings actually seem to be coming in places where there's a big GOP vote. This makes sense if you think that he's taking some proportion of GOP votes. If there are more of GOP votes to snaffle, he gets a bigger swing.

    Way back when we had a lot of discussions about this here (google up "proportional loss"): In theory applying a uniform national swing (eg subtract 5% of total vote from Trump and add 5% to Biden) is a little bit weird; If you imagine a state where Trump only got 4%, he'd be on -1%, which is impossible.
  • nichomar said:

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Lockdowns aren’t not the solution, sensible restrictions, policed and supported by the public and not constantly changed would be more effective, vulnerable people should assess their own risks and behave accordingly. Maybe some accommodation for shopping and eating out times for those most at risk so they don’t become totally isolated..
    Politicians are making fools of themselves on both sides, leaking, arguing no attempt at consensus, they come over as dysfunctional idiots with both leaders flip flopping by the hour.
    How we managed to develop a political class so incompetent is beyond belief.
    It is unusual but I agree with you 100%
  • MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Yet the Mayor has been begging for it and I bet next year the Mayor is re-elected on a landslide.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410

    Scott_xP said:
    Quite, it is the governments decision not the local MPs or the mayor. The local politicians have said what they need to support it. Now is the time for the central government to decide to do it anyway with 1) no further support 2) support the locals have asked for 3) something in between.

    Continuous negotiations hoping the local politicians eventually back down is spineless and dangerous when the virus is spreading rapidly.
    The problem with "local politicians" is who exactly are they? They do not speak with one voice.
    Burnham wants money OK, but.
    9 of the 27 MPs in GM are Tory. They aren't backing the government line.
    Most of Lancashire' s Mps are likewise.
    LCC is Tory.
    Lancashire doesn't want Tier 3.
    So the government will have to impose or not in the end.
  • Roger said:

    Roger said:

    When I last posted here I don't think 'likes' existed. An entertaining game is reading a post and guessing who has given it a 'like'. After two days I think i've got its measure. The more batty the post the more likely Felix is to 'like' it.

    Oh my goodness, are you the Rogerdamus? I can assure you your legend has only grown in the retelling...
    .......Another is guessing who the old posters are with the new names. 'BluestBlue' should be easy-most of the likely candidates dropped out when Johnson took over-but I admit i'm struggling.
    It's really hard to guess. Really, really hard :wink:
    You've got me beat, but then I didn't read your posts under your previous moniker either. :)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    Interesting write-up in the NYT on early voting in WI.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/10/us/politics/early-voting-swing-states.html
  • IanB2 said:

    An entertaining lead!

    To the story we can add the parties we were promised (or threatened with) that never got done. Alan Sked - the very original founder of UKIp who parted company with his baby long ago - was briefly in the news again a few years ago through some new party he was intending to launch. Arron Banks during the Brexit parliamentary saga was apparently going to pour his money into a new party. And Farage at various times has threatened us with new political entities.

    Once you start with a new party it clearly becomes a habit.

    Quite so. The Skedster has now hitched his wagon to Galloway's new mob and will be standing as their candidate for the Highland & Islands. Sic a parcel of rogues..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,859

    nichomar said:

    felix said:

    isam said:

    On the excellent header. I think the issue for the populist right at the moment is not just that it's fragmented into different sections, but that it can't decide on a unifying, overarching theme on which to fight the establishment. Brexit was exactly such a theme.

    But now, they're all over the place. Various attack lines are circulating, as follows. Defund the BBC. All Lives Matter (and BLM are marxists). Asylum seekers/immigrants (including lefty lawyers). Woke comedians, and wokeness in general. The Civil Service. Lazy public sector workers (and their fat pensions). The EU in general, still, particularly Barnier (evil incarnate). The evils of Extinction Rebellion and green vegans in general. Anti-lockdown, for most. I'm sure there's lots more.

    But none of these have a unifying narrative like Brexit did, so the populist right are rather scrabbling around for their next meta-narrative. Let's hope they don't find it.

    It will be anti lockdown
    Doubt it - the elderly tend to favour lockdown - with good reason.
    I don't like, or 'favour', lockdown. Nor do most of the people I know who are in, or approaching, my age-group. We think it's right for us, to avoid infection. We also feel very, very sorry for the young, particularly the teens and twenties.
    And while 'working from home' works for middle and upper management how does it work for people in their first job, whatever that job is. Such people need someone with some experience beside them; can't all be done on Zoom or Teams.
    Lockdowns aren’t not the solution, sensible restrictions, policed and supported by the public and not constantly changed would be more effective, vulnerable people should assess their own risks and behave accordingly. Maybe some accommodation for shopping and eating out times for those most at risk so they don’t become totally isolated..
    Politicians are making fools of themselves on both sides, leaking, arguing no attempt at consensus, they come over as dysfunctional idiots with both leaders flip flopping by the hour.
    How we managed to develop a political class so incompetent is beyond belief.
    Because every tiny detail af anything they do is released on twitter instantly, look at this site this morning. Imagine having a job like that
    Its deeply unattractive. We make politics a career that only narcissists and loons would want to enter and then spend all our time complaining that our politicians are narcissists and loons!
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,067
    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Not pleased with the lockdown as it gives us massive headaches viz. childcare and other family responsibilities. However, rates are rising in London and this tightening is probably warranted (it might not be enough actually!). Time will tell as ever but the public will overwhelmingly support the thrust of this tightening as the YouGov from yesterday suggested.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,226
    MrEd said:

    rawzer said:

    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    538 thinks Florida leans 3% Republican, so if Biden is up 9% nationally he should be up 6% in Florida?
    Basically yes.
    Florida is a tough nut to crack for various reasons. I'm confident of Biden winning the election (and easily) but it would not surprise me if he just misses Florida. Indeed that (at 2.2) is one of my hedges.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    One thing that would be interesting if anyone can be arsed (I can't today, maybe another day) would be to add up the state polling weighted by population and find out what national shares it would imply. Is Biden underperforming in swing states because swing states are moving less than elsewhere, or is that state polling just overstating Trump compared to national polling for some reason?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    murali_s said:

    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Not pleased with the lockdown as it gives us massive headaches viz. childcare and other family responsibilities. However, rates are rising in London and this tightening is probably warranted (it might not be enough actually!). Time will tell as ever but the public will overwhelmingly support the thrust of this tightening as the YouGov from yesterday suggested.
    Rates are not rising in London, we have a 7 day rate of 120 per 100k in London. Other tier 2 places are at 400-600 per 100k. The restrictions are completely unnecessary. Additionally there's evidence that the rate rise is already slowing down, the doubling time in London is 12 days as of yesterday, that's down from 5 days two weeks ago.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Yet the Mayor has been begging for it and I bet next year the Mayor is re-elected on a landslide.
    We have no other viable candidate. If Rory was still running I'd go out and campaign for him.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,102
    edited October 2020
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Quite, it is the governments decision not the local MPs or the mayor. The local politicians have said what they need to support it. Now is the time for the central government to decide to do it anyway with 1) no further support 2) support the locals have asked for 3) something in between.

    Continuous negotiations hoping the local politicians eventually back down is spineless and dangerous when the virus is spreading rapidly.
    The problem with "local politicians" is who exactly are they? They do not speak with one voice.
    Burnham wants money OK, but.
    9 of the 27 MPs in GM are Tory. They aren't backing the government line.
    Most of Lancashire' s Mps are likewise.
    LCC is Tory.
    Lancashire doesn't want Tier 3.
    So the government will have to impose or not in the end.
    This is one of the biggest tests any government has faced since the war

    HMG must not be swayed by various politicians following their own agenda or courting popular opinion as will no doubt be seen in the oncoming polls

    I support the tier process and would add curfews between 9 and 6 am as just happened in France, which by the way is closing 9 cities but not locking down the whole of France
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,410
    Barrow, York, NE Derbyshire, Cheterfield and Erewash into Tier 2 as well.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,555
    edited October 2020

    Scott_xP said:
    Quite, it is the governments decision not the local MPs or the mayor. The local politicians have said what they need to support it. Now is the time for the central government to decide to do it anyway with 1) no further support 2) support the locals have asked for 3) something in between.

    Continuous negotiations hoping the local politicians eventually back down is spineless and dangerous when the virus is spreading rapidly.
    Are we entering peak blame transferring season? When problems don't have solutions, and any good outcomes are unnoticed because the disaster that was avoided was invisible, the politically sensible thing is to ensure that one when the music stops the parcel is being held by someone else.

  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,429
    edited October 2020
    Scott_xP said:
    Which is why we need the poorly-named "circuit breaker" - to bring infection levels down to a point at which test and trace can work more effectively. Obviously there also needs to be considerable improvement in isolation strategies, as MaxPB has indicated.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Good to see the UK & EU still working in concert on Russian poisonings:

    https://twitter.com/DominicRaab/status/1316692583020724224?s=20
  • It saddens me but it really does look like it
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Snap reaction from my mates - no ones going to take any notice of it
  • dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Quite, it is the governments decision not the local MPs or the mayor. The local politicians have said what they need to support it. Now is the time for the central government to decide to do it anyway with 1) no further support 2) support the locals have asked for 3) something in between.

    Continuous negotiations hoping the local politicians eventually back down is spineless and dangerous when the virus is spreading rapidly.
    The problem with "local politicians" is who exactly are they? They do not speak with one voice.
    Burnham wants money OK, but.
    9 of the 27 MPs in GM are Tory. They aren't backing the government line.
    Most of Lancashire' s Mps are likewise.
    LCC is Tory.
    Lancashire doesn't want Tier 3.
    So the government will have to impose or not in the end.
    This is one of the biggest tests any government has faced since the war

    HMG must not be swayed by various politicians following their own agenda or courting popular opinion as will no doubt be seen in the oncoming polls

    I support the tier process and would add curfews between 9 and 6 am as just happened in France, which by the way is closing 9 cities but not locking down the whole of France
    Cities do tend to be a bit further apart from each other in France. The same practice here would be unlikely to have the same effect.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 3,639
    Hancock: What a pile of shyte
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    Scott_xP said:
    Which is why we need the poorly-named "circuit breaker" - to bring infection levels down to a point at which test and trace can work more effectively. Obviously there also needs to be considerable improvement in isolation strategies, as MaxPB has indicated.
    We can short circuit all of this with proper isolation and no need for a second lockdown. It completely sidesteps the need for contact tracing because we actually do test enough people to break the viral transmission chain.
  • isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Snap reaction from my mates - no ones going to take any notice of it
    And that leads to a national curfew
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    London won't like being lumped in with Essex
  • Foxy said:

    From last night, does anyone know what Hancock means about Macron praising our test and trace?

    I can't imagine that was high on Macron's priority list so seems an odd thing for Hancock to have said?

    https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1316455895434498055

    https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1316652154426478594?s=09
    Sounds awfully needy on Hancock's part.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited October 2020
    MrEd said:

    FYI, just looking at the early votes data, one thing I might be concerned about if I was a Democrat in Michigan is that the requests for mail in ballots in Wayne County (which includes Detroit and is the biggest county) are around 10% below other Democrat-leaning areas in the states. The returned / accepted rate is also low compared with other counties (but similar to Oakland, another big Democrat county). To me (and I'm sure I will be accused of bias), that would raise questions about voter enthusiasm in Detroit

    (Before anyone says it, I would expect Republican counties generally to have lower requests for mail in ballots given Trump's comments so comparing Wayne with Republican counties is probably not appropriate.

    Traditionally African Americans prefer voting early in person over mail-in ballots.
  • kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    rawzer said:

    MrEd said:

    Alistair said:

    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    Roger said:
    At the moment Biden will likely win the popular vote with about 50/51% but if Trump gets his vote up to 47/48% it could still be close yes.

    The state polling also suggests Trump is now ahead in Ohio and Iowa and near tied in Florida and North Carolina and Arizona but Biden is ahead in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, if Trump holds all the former he would then just need one of the latter to win and we know most of the state polls in the latter in 2016 were wrong except Trafalgar
    Trump is over and good riddance
    When one compares the polls now with the figures, state by state, last time it looks as though Trump is down across the board, and most if not all the States that he scraped home in in 2016 will go Dem this year. HYUFD says 'now ahead'; in fact the leads as published are half or less of what they were in 2016.
    I think that is based on RCP which is saying that, in the battleground states, Trump is very slightly ahead of where he was in 2016.

    I think it depends which set of polls you believe (or believe them at all). If you think the national polls, then he is in serious trouble, if the state ones, as HYFUD says, he has a chance. The state polls were more inaccurate in 2016 but there is an argument for saying they might be more accurate in 2020 in that the errors of 16 forced them to correct their mistakes. The national pollsters still have the view they basically got it right in 16, which leads to complacency.

    Also, only 1%+ of respondents actually answer.
    But the RCP battleground poll comparison is comparing stte polls in 2016 which we now know to have been biased against Trump.

    So if you think 2020 state polling is more accurate than the national polling this time out then Trump is still fucked.
    I said they "might" be better, not are. You can make changes but sometimes you make it worse.

    I think it was Drutt last night who said there are signs that non-college educated voters are coming in droves in WI and ahead of 2016. It is entirely possible their influence in 2016 is understated again.

    In any event, if Biden is up over 9% nationally, he shouldn't be up less than 3% in Florida. The polls for states like CA seem to be showing swings in line with the national swings.
    538 thinks Florida leans 3% Republican, so if Biden is up 9% nationally he should be up 6% in Florida?
    Basically yes.
    Florida is a tough nut to crack for various reasons. I'm confident of Biden winning the election (and easily) but it would not surprise me if he just misses Florida. Indeed that (at 2.2) is one of my hedges.
    That's my stance too. 538 takes this kind of thing into account in its probability estimates. Some States are more 'elastic' than others in the sense that they vary as to how flexible they are in their voting habits. Florida and Georgia are good examples of inelastic States.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Snap reaction to London restrictions from Londoners - everyone hates it.

    Snap reaction from my mates - no ones going to take any notice of it
    Yeah tbf, we just got invited for drinks on Saturday evening with 4 other friends. Pretty sure we're still going to go.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    I have to say, and yes this does agree with my book ! that the Democrat numbers in the WOW suburbs are as bad as that early vote track makes out. Democrat postals are ahead of their registrations everywhere else we know about party affiliation. I think it's more likely to be an artifact of their methodology where they don't have registration data provided.

    I am very confused by he Target Voter Party modelling in NC given what we know about Unaffiliated's Primary choice. They have the returns way more Republican than I would.
This discussion has been closed.