Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
If there's any flak flying please aim it at Niall Ferguson. I am merely the messenger
Oh there you are!
Good header! And I don't really care about US politics.
Do you specifically not care about US politics or is it more that you only care about British politics?
I don't really spend enough time on it to have informed views (who is ahead in Iowa...what is happening in Michigan...which pollster was right about Texas...).
I am interested in who wins the presidency but beyond that I don't really want to see the sausage being made.
Fair enough. Greatest show on earth for me. Especially this one.
That's because you were brought up on Columbo and Kojak.
Biden tax rate is good, we need to up our tax rates significantly as well
We used to have tax rates like that in the 1970s and 1980s, then Mrs Thatcher and Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% in just one budget.
Labour MPs went apeshit, but it increased the tax take.
Higher taxes don't work.
Perhaps you can explain why that is without invoking the Laffer curve which you have ridiculed.
Biden tax rate is good, we need to up our tax rates significantly as well
We used to have tax rates like that in the 1970s and 1980s, then Mrs Thatcher and Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% in just one budget.
Labour MPs went apeshit, but it increased the tax take.
Higher taxes don't work.
Perhaps you can explain why that is without invoking the Laffer curve which you have ridiculed.
Have I ridiculed the Laffer curve?
Well apologies if I recall incorrectly but there were such inferences a week or two ago, I thought by you inter alia, but maybe I'm wrong about who exactly it was.
Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
If there's any flak flying please aim it at Niall Ferguson. I am merely the messenger
Oh there you are!
Good header! And I don't really care about US politics.
Do you specifically not care about US politics or is it more that you only care about British politics?
I don't really spend enough time on it to have informed views (who is ahead in Iowa...what is happening in Michigan...which pollster was right about Texas...).
I am interested in who wins the presidency but beyond that I don't really want to see the sausage being made.
Fair enough. Greatest show on earth for me. Especially this one.
That's because you were brought up on Columbo and Kojak.
It doesn't make sense to me. The cost of the pandemic is in the billions not millions. The cost of a national firebreak would be billions not millions.
Having a localised lockdown, even if it costs tens of millions more, is considerably cheaper.
The whole point is that it looks like more and more areas are going to be put into Tier 3. This is the baseline negotiation. Every region will want what Manchester gets. And the govt is now saying it can't afford it. For some reason, whether you agree or disagree.
Exactly as @contrarian has been saying for months.
There is a more or less universal unwillingness to put a figure on how much is too much when it comes to the subject of the amount we will be asking our grandchildren to lend us for us to spend right now and for them to pay back after our day.
3 trillion? 4 trillion?.....
Remembering that we never even started paying back what we borrowed to cover the crisis of 2008 it seems to me this is a central question.
Who is representing our grandchildren's interest?
A years GDP would be fine imo. In the long run similar to taking a gap year personal finance wise.
Except that:
1. We are already at 100% of GDP. 2. Government spending is roughly 1/3 of GDP, so the deficit is three years’ spending, not one.
I suspect there are many white suburban women who support Biden but who dare not tell their Trump supporting husbands. Some may not dare to tell pollsters either. It's secret between them and the ballot box.
I think there are probably more shy Biden voters than shy Trump voters.
Why are they "shy" with online polls though? Do they think yougov are going to call up their husband and say, you wont believe this but your wife is a closet Trump/Biden fan?
I think most won't be shy but some will be. It's the psychology of possessing a dangerous secret.
It's crap. There's no shy Trump vote out there. There's no 1948 redux. The polls are, if anything, underestimating the Biden share.
Landslide.
I agree. I'm suggesting there is a shy Biden vote (suburban wives of strident Trump husbands) - not a shy Trump vote.
I can see a shy Trump vote in Florida e.g. Latinos in Palm Beach etc even though I still consider Biden an ultra marginal favourite in Florida overall but I don't buy the idea of lots of shy Trump voters elsewhere.
My main concern at the moment is mail in ballots in Pennsylvania and concern over that leading to shenanigans.
One for @Charles, what do you know about UCB? Sounds like good news on the face of it.
"An industry insider tells Guido the firm, ‘UCB’, embarked on a downsizing initiative in which they attempted to shut down their UK operations entirely and shift everything to Belgium, only for the highly-skilled workforce to refuse to move. In the end they gave up, and so the pharmacologists have announced £1 billion of new investment on a 47-acre British campus
Biden tax rate is good, we need to up our tax rates significantly as well
We used to have tax rates like that in the 1970s and 1980s, then Mrs Thatcher and Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% in just one budget.
Labour MPs went apeshit, but it increased the tax take.
Higher taxes don't work.
Perhaps you can explain why that is without invoking the Laffer curve which you have ridiculed.
Whilst we are on the Laffer curve can any government supporters explain how we would raise more tax by taxing London car commuters an extra £3k per year whilst simultaneously reducing business for shops, hospitality and garages?
Destroying tens of thousands of jobs, if not hundreds of thousands, in order to get some sense of hypothecated tax to fund TfL (or for the more cynical to try and get the Tories back in the mayoral election race). The tax it raises will be dwarfed by the lost income tax, VAT and increased benefits.
It doesn't make sense to me. The cost of the pandemic is in the billions not millions. The cost of a national firebreak would be billions not millions.
Having a localised lockdown, even if it costs tens of millions more, is considerably cheaper.
The whole point is that it looks like more and more areas are going to be put into Tier 3. This is the baseline negotiation. Every region will want what Manchester gets. And the govt is now saying it can't afford it. For some reason, whether you agree or disagree.
Exactly as @contrarian has been saying for months.
There is a more or less universal unwillingness to put a figure on how much is too much when it comes to the subject of the amount we will be asking our grandchildren to lend us for us to spend right now and for them to pay back after our day.
3 trillion? 4 trillion?.....
Remembering that we never even started paying back what we borrowed to cover the crisis of 2008 it seems to me this is a central question.
Who is representing our grandchildren's interest?
A years GDP would be fine imo. In the long run similar to taking a gap year personal finance wise.
Except that:
1. We are already at 100% of GDP. 2. Government spending is roughly 1/3 of GDP, so the deficit is three years’ spending, not one.
I dont think either point discounts my admittedly finger in the air estimate. Plenty of people have a years income as long term debt and still take a gap year. In 25 years time it usually has a minimal impact on their finances, what they do in between is far more important. As to the level, I was not tying it to govt spending, just GDP. Algarkirk's question was a good one, and deserved at least one answer, other answers may of course be better or worse.
I think the Famous Mr Ed is right about one thing; the Biden campaign has run out of steam and is just trying to get to election day without a massive fuck up. The other factor is that Trump doesn't give a fuck about convention, rules, the law, truth or anything else except getting as high as fuck. I am starting to think Trump will do it. I will have an anal prolapse from laughing if he does.
I just applied for my Veterans Railcard. When I am on an LNER train as it runs parallel to the M1 am I going to see you, head down on a GPZ900R by the side of and racing the train?
The M1 is a killing field for Vmax runs. That bit of the M40 where there is nowhere for the feds to hide is my traditional high speed motorcycle proving ground.
Enjoyed the thread header, RB. Thank you. I know they are not easy to write and you expose yourself to flack so all thanks are well-deserved, and that goes for other thread-writers too.
It's always interesting to hear contrarian views but your man rather undermines his own case when he speaks of Trump having a 10% chance. As a number of posters have pointed out, that's about the same ballpark as the major models around, such as 538 and The Economist.
There has been less comment on his shy-Trumper remark, despite the fact he seems to be well off the pace here too. The topic has been much analysed since the polling 'failure' of 2016. I have read two very good articles on it. One was by a highly rated polling firm (Emerson, or maybe Monmouth?) and the other was the Kennedy report into how the pollsters performed generally. Both are worth a read but they're long. The executive summary is:
* Shy-Trumpers do exist. They are mostly to be found in higher income groups, especially amongst segments of the population which are generally thought to be strongly Democrat. (Think middle to upper range executives in big firms in Democrat-voting States.)
* The number is not great - possibly enough to be noticeable at district level but unlikely to be enough to turn a whole State, especially as they have to be netted off against....
* Shy Biden voters: these are the STs mirror image. (Think construction site workers who consider it unwise to let their peers know they think Trump is a schmuck.)
The reports also looked at the related question of under-weighting of low education voters in the samples. This was probably the biggest contributor to the 'fail'. Most decent polling organisations have adjusted for this now, which is not to say that another unforeseen probem may arise, or that it won't cut the other way this time and overestimate Trump's vote. Nobody knows. When you are dealing with humans, anything can happen (which I kind of like and find reassuring.)
Your man is no doubt an excellent historian and I envy you having the opportunity to listen to him, but his knowledge of polls and polling seems to be a little on the thin side. I'd certainly back a number of PB posters against him. In fact, I kind of have.
If there's any flak flying please aim it at Niall Ferguson. I am merely the messenger
Oh there you are!
Good header! And I don't really care about US politics.
Do you specifically not care about US politics or is it more that you only care about British politics?
I don't really spend enough time on it to have informed views (who is ahead in Iowa...what is happening in Michigan...which pollster was right about Texas...).
I am interested in who wins the presidency but beyond that I don't really want to see the sausage being made.
Fair enough. Greatest show on earth for me. Especially this one.
That's because you were brought up on Columbo and Kojak.
True. But what followed was 50 minutes of top quality thrills and spills. And a touch of ahead-of-its-time realism too, with the lead character being obese.
Boris Johnson's government is sketching out a strategy to counter rising support for independence, with a memo circulated to a select group of people including Cabinet minister Michael Gove, according to people familiar with the discussions taking place, it is being reported.
The document from a political consultancy firm that works closely with the Tories looks at tactics to delay and then avoid a referendum in the event of a majority for the SNP in next May’s elections, an outcome that polls suggest is likely.
Biden tax rate is good, we need to up our tax rates significantly as well
We used to have tax rates like that in the 1970s and 1980s, then Mrs Thatcher and Nigel Lawson cut the top rate of tax from 60% to 40% in just one budget.
Labour MPs went apeshit, but it increased the tax take.
Higher taxes don't work.
If you assume that the only purpose of a high tax rate is to increase tax take. That is not an assumption everyone will agree with.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRo7PiltLUI
NEW THREAD
1. We are already at 100% of GDP.
2. Government spending is roughly 1/3 of GDP, so the deficit is three years’ spending, not one.
My main concern at the moment is mail in ballots in Pennsylvania and concern over that leading to shenanigans.
Destroying tens of thousands of jobs, if not hundreds of thousands, in order to get some sense of hypothecated tax to fund TfL (or for the more cynical to try and get the Tories back in the mayoral election race). The tax it raises will be dwarfed by the lost income tax, VAT and increased benefits.
https://twitter.com/mckinlay_liz/status/1318534130704011264?s=20
And, yes, that applies to the Universal Credit withdrawal rate, as well as the top-rate of tax.
The document from a political consultancy firm that works closely with the Tories looks at tactics to delay and then avoid a referendum in the event of a majority for the SNP in next May’s elections, an outcome that polls suggest is likely.
Continuing to dismiss Scottish calls for another independence vote outright could be “counterproductive,” the memo said.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18806563.uk-tories-start-war-gaming-prevent-scottish-independence/
Today's IBD/TIPP:
Biden 48 (-2)
Trump 46 (+2)
Changes from yesterday.