There's a certain type of English hack that thinks that they have to produce an opinion (however hackneyed and clichėd) on Scottish indy, it's like a Scout badge for these people. Next, expect a Tobster piece on his Cybernat hell.
I'd say this is generally how it's done these days down at the Toby end of the market. Column to provoke hostility from some section of society that is not in the Brexit / Covid denialist space, followed by a column complaining about that hostility. It's smart columnism, I suppose.
Public Policy Institute of California California Biden 58% Trump 32%
So Biden is +8 or -2 in Michigan, depending on whether you poll likely voters or check tea-leaves?
Many US states are very tough to poll. Trump supporters, especially, are hard to reach because they are often blue collar workers at work, or live in smaller towns, suburbs and rural communities. It can take several days to reach enough voters to make up a representative sample of the state, in terms of who is actually going to vote.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
Public Policy Institute of California California Biden 58% Trump 32%
So Biden is +8 or -2 in Michigan, depending on whether you poll likely voters or check tea-leaves?
Many US states are very tough to poll. Trump supporters, especially, are hard to reach because they are often blue collar workers at work, or live in smaller towns, suburbs and rural communities. It can take several days to reach enough voters to make up a representative sample of the state, in terms of who is actually going to vote.
Some pollsters simply don't bother.
That is categorically incorrect. The polls are generally weighted to account for your "blue collar workers", especially in the corrections following 2016.
Public Policy Institute of California California Biden 58% Trump 32%
So Biden is +8 or -2 in Michigan, depending on whether you poll likely voters or check tea-leaves?
Many US states are very tough to poll. Trump supporters, especially, are hard to reach because they are often blue collar workers at work, or live in smaller towns, suburbs and rural communities. It can take several days to reach enough voters to make up a representative sample of the state, in terms of who is actually going to vote.
Some pollsters simply don't bother.
But why do you think the national polls got it largely right in 2016?
Bit of a stretch admittedly, but then I was there a few weeks ago and there's of what is clearly Reading which are officially Wokingham, so who the hell knows.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Public Policy Institute of California California Biden 58% Trump 32%
So Biden is +8 or -2 in Michigan, depending on whether you poll likely voters or check tea-leaves?
Many US states are very tough to poll. Trump supporters, especially, are hard to reach because they are often blue collar workers at work, or live in smaller towns, suburbs and rural communities. It can take several days to reach enough voters to make up a representative sample of the state, in terms of who is actually going to vote.
Some pollsters simply don't bother.
But why do you think the national polls got it largely right in 2016?
beats me. Really does. The guy I listen to every day is a republican leaning pollster who explains some of the difficulties of polling individual states. It really does sound like a tough job. And getting tougher.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
MR has been smart. He's informed himself on one narrow specialist area and become an expert. He doesn't stray into any other area and is always firm but polite.
Public Policy Institute of California California Biden 58% Trump 32%
So Biden is +8 or -2 in Michigan, depending on whether you poll likely voters or check tea-leaves?
Many US states are very tough to poll. Trump supporters, especially, are hard to reach because they are often blue collar workers at work, or live in smaller towns, suburbs and rural communities. It can take several days to reach enough voters to make up a representative sample of the state, in terms of who is actually going to vote.
Some pollsters simply don't bother.
But why do you think the national polls got it largely right in 2016?
beats me. Really does. The guy I listen to every day is a republican leaning pollster who explains some of the difficulties of polling individual states. It really does sound like a tough job. And getting tougher.
But what he says makes sense (to me anyway).
Maybe he should just do what Trafalgar likely do and pluck their figures out of their arses?
That gives me goosebumps. Scotland's going, isn't it?
Yes, probably. Not for a few years yet, arguments and disputes over how to have it happen, but I think we're are sadly past the point where arguments will stem the tide. And once done, that's it forever. I feel quite depressed on the subject.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
"Because Trump wasn't on the ballot" they can be ignored apparently.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
Yes, but there's no evidence of a shy Trump vote in 2020. In fact there very well may be a shy Biden vote. We'll find out.
To the first, because it doesn't matter what they say anymore, they have momentum. I've long been of the opinion that a lot of the time the official campaigns and key proponents of a policy are often pretty offputting or focus on preaching to the choir, but changing context and subtler interventions end up winning the day.
On the second, IDK, Sunak seems generally likeable and inoffensive and not being a hate figure like Boris means he can say such things without it seeming wholly insincere, but I don't know how excited we should be by his tone.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
If there was a Shy Trump vote why on average across all States they operated in did Trafalgar massively overstate Trump last time?
7% of people see Reading as London? It really is true, isn't it, that you can get 5-10% of people to agree to anything no matter how loopy.
The Decapitation Constant is generally thought to be 4%.
Decapitation 4% and misunderstanding the question, 3%
What did they count as London when asking Londoners what counted as London?
PS. I know, probably Greater London, but you can see that the start point defines the end point in this one.
PPS. It occurs to me that LadyG claimed to be born within 20m of Bow Bells the other week. Google couldn't tell me the height of the bell when I went Russian nerve agent spy on this claim, but given the height of the tower and the likely position of the bell, I deduce that this was an incredible feat of mid air childbirth. Anyhow, maybe with LadyG's famed steadfast consistency, they just asked her 100 times?
What constitutes London is a question to which there is no answer and certainly not one which will get agreement or consistency. Personally I like to keep it simple so inside M25=London, outside not London for me.
To be fair to Matt, he used to be a bigwig in Richmond Conservatives, and I think he helped select Rishi for the seat, he's known Rishi for years.
Edit - He might even have been Rishi's agent in 2015.
Blimey. Pity he didn't have that same level of passion when he voted to fuck over all the poor kids here in Stockton South. He's happy to pose for pictures in food banks but not to do anything about it.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
If there was a Shy Trump vote why on average across all States they operated in did Trafalgar massively overstate Trump last time?
They didn't apart from Nevada, that was most other pollsters, hence Trafalgar correctly called the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
Paul the Octopus correctly predicted the winner of each of the seven 2010 FIFA World Cup matches that the German team played, a far better record than most football pundits.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
Wrong, predicting the winner is meaningless predicting the vote shares is what pollsters try to do and they had a terrible, terrible record on that.
If 1 pollster predicts Trump will win a state by 20% and another predicts Biden will win it by 1% and Trump wins it by 0.5% then which pollster was more accurate?
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
MR has been smart. He's informed himself on one narrow specialist area and become an expert. He doesn't stray into any other area and is always firm but polite.
He could be very successful if he sticks to that formula, and his attitude will make it much harder to dismiss.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
Well, also you aren't arguing with the celebrity, you are arguing with his team from a campaigning PR company. Look at the timing of lots of tweets, 9-12am....that when he will be at training and just happens to have all the stats, with required links to hand.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
Well, also you aren't arguing with the celebrity, you are arguing with his team from a campaigning PR company.
The impression is the same, whether it is literally him or a PR company he has employed to good effect. I mean, if words from a politician's speech are attacked by an opponent they don't go after the speechwriter.
You are right about Arizona. Trump +1 isn't exactly a good result, although personally I think Biden will take it. It's Florida that is surprising me. I had it down as strong for The Orange One but it's starting to look like a Biden romp.
If he takes that AND Pennsylvania he's President, by a distance.
To be fair to Sunak (which I find difficult because I think he is a lightweight), I don’t think, to the best of my recollection, that Norman “je regret rien” Lamont was that popular prior to Black Wednesday
He was pretty popular, I'll dig it out but he was massively preferred to John Smith and Gordon Brown (albeit for one month) as Chancellor up until September 1992.
I believe the Tories won the '92 election because of the economy.
You could be right. I am probably applying my own bias, because despite being a Conservative supporter, I always thought he was a revolting weasel.
Part of the problem is that he has the face of a revolting weasel. That matters. It shouldn't, but it does. In contrast, Sunak has a very pleasant, amiable countenance. People who know nothing about politics or economics will make their judgements, if they make one at all, on that basis.
Lamont is surprisingly pleasant in person.
A lot of politicians are in my experience. I was really surprised how charismatic John Major was in person.
I met John Major in the 80s and also Jeremy Corbyn and Boris. I found Major and Corbyn far more attractive than Boris as both Major and Corbyn appeared interested in what I was saying whereas Boris only seemed interested in Boris.
The politicians that get to the top, in any party, tend to have good people skills and be relatively easy to get on with; they have needed to be, in their path up the greasy pole. Many backbenchers are however as unpleasant in person as you would imagine; for the many sitting in safe seats, the only people they have really ever had to impress has been a handful of party activists in their seat, many years ago.
Boris is the exception because he came in as an outsider. Boris has a magnetism that plays well for brief meetings with the public, but is not a particularly pleasant person to deal with as a politician, unless he wants something from you. And even then.
In general I found fellow-MPs on both sides pretty pleasant most of the time, but the ones who I particularly liked were not people who were generally esteemed - I'd agree about Major and Corbyn, and add Letwin and Ruth Kelly, all of them notably willing to listen and just basically well-mannered and unpompous. Tony Blair was very interesting to talk to, and his lightning mind would engage with anything you said and come back with an interesting reply, but he didn't exactly strike me as likeable. By total contrast, Gordon Brown had zero social skills to the point of being tongue-tied in casual conversation, but despite his famous temper with equals he was genuinely warm and gentle with junior staff and kids - my Scottish wife said he was a recognisable Scottish type on both counts.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
If there was a Shy Trump vote why on average across all States they operated in did Trafalgar massively overstate Trump last time?
They didn't apart from Nevada, that was most other pollsters, hence Trafalgar correctly called the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada
They did. They were miles out in Florida for instance.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
Well, also you aren't arguing with the celebrity, you are arguing with his team from a campaigning PR company.
The impression is the same, whether it is literally him or a PR company he has employed to good effect. I mean, if words from a politician's speech are attacked by an opponent they don't go after the speechwriter.
The PR company signed him. They are well known as a "campaigning" organisation. I am not saying this isn't a cause he believes in, but RocNation have admitted they run this, sorry "provide support services" for him.
So you are going into battle against an organisation whose function includes running PR campaigns for people.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
If there was a Shy Trump vote why on average across all States they operated in did Trafalgar massively overstate Trump last time?
They didn't apart from Nevada, that was most other pollsters, hence Trafalgar correctly called the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada
They did. They were miles out in Florida for instance.
They weren't miles out, even on voteshare they were closer than Fox for instance who had Clinton +4% in Florida or Opinion Savvy who had Clinton +2% or PPP who had Clinton +5% in Florida in their final polls
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
While confidently crowing about a Biden landslide and dismissing any evidence to the contrary, particularly Trafalgar, with a few exceptions like contrarian and obviously Mr Ed
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
So long as you don't forget that many people also acknowledge he might win the EC. Dismissing that as backcovering is not universally reasonable.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
While confidently crowing about a Biden landslide and dismissing any evidence to the contrary, particularly Trafalgar, with a few exceptions like contrarian and obviously Mr Ed
Nobody is dismissing anything. We're merely laughing at your devotion to Trafalgar and Rasmussen. They very well may be right but you're the one ignoring everything else, not us.
It's absolutely remarkable that, in all their haste to depict the Tories as evil and unfeeling, I haven't seen a single advocate for the free school meals proposal provide any data at all on the scale of the problem it is supposed to address, nor any reasoned argument that it's a good way to deal with the problem. Impugning the motives of those on the other side of the argument is not convincing.
Well you need to follow Marcus Rashford on twitter.
It seems unwise to get into twitter discussions with a celebrity campaigner when you are a politician. Either they will be hysterical and hyperbolic, which you can handle as a politician by playing the high ground, or they won't play it like a politician at all, in which case treating them like you would an opponent makes you look foolish.
Well, also you aren't arguing with the celebrity, you are arguing with his team from a campaigning PR company.
The impression is the same, whether it is literally him or a PR company he has employed to good effect. I mean, if words from a politician's speech are attacked by an opponent they don't go after the speechwriter.
The PR company signed him. They are well known as a "campaigning" organisation. I am not saying this isn't a cause he believes in, but RocNation have admitted they run this, sorry "provide support services" for him.
So you are going into battle against an organisation whose function includes running PR campaigns for people.
I wasn't disputing the point, I was saying it makes no difference to how it looks to people since all they will see in his name on it. And having a PR company run it is not necessarily an inherent advantage, plenty of PR campaigns are absolute crap.
You are right about Arizona. Trump +1 isn't exactly a good result, although personally I think Biden will take it. It's Florida that is surprising me. I had it down as strong for The Orange One but it's starting to look like a Biden romp.
If he takes that AND Pennsylvania he's President, by a distance.
I am now of the view Florida will be the key swing state not Pennsylvania, Biden will win the latter but Trump will hold Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and 1 or both of Michigan and Wisconsin
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
While confidently crowing about a Biden landslide and dismissing any evidence to the contrary, particularly Trafalgar, with a few exceptions like contrarian and obviously Mr Ed
Trafalgar aren't evidence since they have no public methodology or integrity.
If there is evidence then people with more integrity than Paul the Octopus 🐙 (h/t TUD) in their methodology should be able to find it.
RCP have been pushing a measure that showed Trump ahead in battleground states versus where he was at the same stage in the race against Clinton.
That has now flipped to Biden being 4.2% ahead versus Clinton's 3.8% lead at the same stage.
Oops, that's not quite fitting the preferred narrative.
It also ignores any corrections that the pollsters have done in the interim to avoid an overstatement of the Democratic position.
In fairness a site like that needs traffic and a horse race. Its harder if one of the horses is already in the abattoir.
Currently nationally about 2 to 3% of voters are not saying who they will vote for, more in the rustbelt, as in 2016 I expect most of them to go to Trump.
538's final national 2016 forecast in the popular vote was Hillary 48% and Trump 44%, so it got the Hillary share about right in the popular vote but underestimated the Trump share by about 2%
I am not sure that is accurate. About 99% of votes won't say who they are voting for or take part in polling.
The assumption that the oddities that do are an accurate reflection of the rest of the electorate is, well, a part of the optimism needed by pollsters generally. My expectation, FWIW, is that those not expressing a preference will not vote at all in the main. After all, nearly half of all Americans won't.
Or else you can look at Rasmussen and IBID/TIPP who are now showing barely any swing from 2016 unlike most pollsters
You tell us we have to listen to Trafalgar because they got a couple of key state polls right in 2016 (as well as a lot else wrong)
You now tell us we need to listen to Rasmussen's national poll their most recent national polling in the midterms was the only won that predicted a GOP win and were an astonishing 10% out.
Wouldn't it easier if you simply said that all the best polls for Trump are the correct ones?
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was spot on at Clinton +2%
The mid-terms were more recent, so why ignore that?.
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
As there is no shy GOP vote, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016
If there was a Shy Trump vote why on average across all States they operated in did Trafalgar massively overstate Trump last time?
They didn't apart from Nevada, that was most other pollsters, hence Trafalgar correctly called the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada
They did. They were miles out in Florida for instance.
They weren't miles out, even on voteshare they were closer than Fox for instance who had Clinton +4% in Florida or Opinion Savvy who had Clinton +2% or PPP who had Clinton +5% in Florida in their final polls
But Trafalgar aren't opinion polling in the usual sense of the term. The guy is using evidence and experience to call states. Just like you, he may call some right and some wrong. The difference is you don't claim to be an opinion polling operation because you are not an opinion polling organisation, neither is he.
None of that is to say he won't call a handful of swing states correctly, he just won't use science to do it.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
Paul the Octopus correctly predicted the winner of each of the seven 2010 FIFA World Cup matches that the German team played, a far better record than most football pundits.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
Paul the Octopus correctly predicted the winner of each of the seven 2010 FIFA World Cup matches that the German team played, a far better record than most football pundits.
Yes, but he's dead (may he rest in peace) so we must take our divinations where we can find them.
You are right about Arizona. Trump +1 isn't exactly a good result, although personally I think Biden will take it. It's Florida that is surprising me. I had it down as strong for The Orange One but it's starting to look like a Biden romp.
If he takes that AND Pennsylvania he's President, by a distance.
I am now of the view Florida will be the key swing state not Pennsylvania, Biden will win the latter but Trump will hold Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and 1 or both of Michigan and Wisconsin
Tend to agree. Trump is suffering a bit in Florida because white retirees are drifting away from him. That said, there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanic voters.
Hmm, the changes to the jobs scheme look positive. Could have avoided a shit load of hassle if he'd just introduced it a few weeks ago. Also think tier 3 should be at 80% with a lower limit like £1800 not 67% at with a £2100. That protects 80% of income for people earning up to £27k whole the former does 67% for those earning up to £37k with those on £30-37k benefiting the most and those on lower incomes benefiting significantly less.
One thing that I have to say about Rishi is that he doesn't seem to be afraid to admit his own mistakes. Other cabinet ministers will continue taking the country down the wrong path rather than admit they were wrong, he's definitely a cut above the rest of them.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
While confidently crowing about a Biden landslide and dismissing any evidence to the contrary, particularly Trafalgar, with a few exceptions like contrarian and obviously Mr Ed
I haven't noticed much confident crowing about landslides. I have diffidently bet on a victory, margin not specified, and if I lose my money it seems harsh that I and others like me should be subject to four years of not being allowed to forgettery. And your right to crow is certainly correlated to your preparedness to put money where mouth is (check out the B in PB), so what's your betting position on this?
I have long given up responding to HYUFD on any issue relating to polling. But, his insistence on Trafalgar as the only outfit worth listening to this election because of their 'performance' in 2016 has me wondering a question. Has any polling outfit (since there has been a large number to pick from) ever been the most accurate pollster in 2 or more GEs in a row in a major Western Democracy? Ok, let's narrow that down to 'in the US or the UK'?
When this type of propaganda is put out by Tories it just further demonstrates how much they fear Starmer.
They don't fear him. Why the fuck should they? If insufficient people will vote for him in the current circumstances then what, exactly, has to happen for him to get a sustained poll lead?
Of course they fear him, and with good reason. They perhaps don't fear the rest of the Labour front bench very much, but they definitely fear Starmer which is why all the trite "Starmer is boring" memes, because they cannot get anything else to stick.
They fear him because he is clever and their leader is, well, totally shit! The less swivelly-eyed/less stupid Tories (not many of those left) know that eventually the disinterested electorate will catch up with this. IMO, the reason why the polls haven't moved very much thus far is because most people are interested in other things. Additionally people rarely like to think they have been conned, so for the time being the less politically interested will give Shagger the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they may have given their decision to vote Brexit the benefit of the doubt. As others have mentioned, Starmer will need to get some of the more talented old guard back. At the moment his front bench is as lightweight and vacuous as the government one. When that inevitably changes so will the polls, and Shagger will be well and truly shagged.
I hope so but I'm not sure. What sort of opposition do Labour need to be to maximize their chances of winning the next election? Not so much how “left” or “centrist” – that can wait – but the tone to adopt. Aggressive and rhetorical or muted and managerial? This is broadly the choice imo and we’ve just witnessed a striking contrast between the Manchester and South Yorkshire response to Tier 3 funding which illustrates it perfectly.
Manchester, we see Andy Burnham, out on the steps of the town hall with supporters massed behind him, dressed in tight trousers and bomber jacket, 50 going on 35, really giving it some. One couldn’t help but think subliminally of Paris 68 and the likes of Daniel Cohn Bendit. Or perhaps a closer fit, the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980 and Lech Walesa.
Switch to Sheffield and it’s Dan Jarvis, like Burnham a one-time betting fav for Labour leader but this is all there was in common. No pugnacious theatre from him, simply a one-on-one interview in a tranquil square with local TV. Suit, tie, placid demeanour, and a low key conversational exchange, informing us – yawn – that he’d agreed a suitable funding package with the government. It was pure Halifax branch manager (from back when they had them).
So which one hits the spot? Which is the better template for Labour in opposition? I don’t know. You watch a Jarvis and you’re reassured somewhat but your pulse remains resolutely steady. Burnham gets it racing - but do floating voters want that from a Labour politician? As I say, I don’t know. I know what I prefer but that’s not the important metric.
Spot on. Except that I don't think it's either/or. Why not a bit of both? Hence the Blair/Prescott, Starmer/Rayner comparison I made earlier. Starmer stays statesmanlike, above the hurly burly of the fray, but those who are up for a fight are let off the leash a bit more. I think this will be especially effective when/if the Covid pandemic is not centre stage.
I actually thought Rayner would be exactly that and I've been a bit surprised how up to now she hasn't let rip very often if at all. Maybe this will change as of the incident yesterday. I personally think there will be a big opportunity for Labour passion when the economic response to this crisis does not - as I'm sure it won't - involve most of the financial burden falling on the better off.
Can we shut the fuck up about trafalgar please we will know in 12 days time.
Oh please. They are not a polling organisation. They are an irrelevance.
They are not an irrelevance because they have, at the very least, disrupted the narrative. Nobody can claim all the polls are showing a Biden cake walk.
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
Trafalgar had a terrible track record in 2016.
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
Wrong, Trafalgar correctly predicted the winner of every swing state in 2016 except Nevada, a far better record than most pollsters
Paul the Octopus correctly predicted the winner of each of the seven 2010 FIFA World Cup matches that the German team played, a far better record than most football pundits.
Yes, but he's dead (may he rest in peace) so we must take our divinations where we can find them.
We could sacrifice a sheep, not to mention an ox and a pig as well. I am sure our resident classicist would know all about that and that it would be no worse than a certain firm (incorporated OR not) which should no longer be discussed on this site for reasons of our boredom threshold. At least we'd get a barbecue out of it.
Can we shut the fuck up about trafalgar please we will know in 12 days time.
Oh please. They are not a polling organisation. They are an irrelevance.
They are not an irrelevance because they have, at the very least, disrupted the narrative. Nobody can claim all the polls are showing a Biden cake walk.
You are right about Arizona. Trump +1 isn't exactly a good result, although personally I think Biden will take it. It's Florida that is surprising me. I had it down as strong for The Orange One but it's starting to look like a Biden romp.
If he takes that AND Pennsylvania he's President, by a distance.
I am now of the view Florida will be the key swing state not Pennsylvania, Biden will win the latter but Trump will hold Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina and 1 or both of Michigan and Wisconsin
Tend to agree. Trump is suffering a bit in Florida because white retirees are drifting away from him. That said, there is some evidence he is doing better with Hispanic voters.
Damn close run thing.
Yeah the map will look different to 2016. Trump will close the gap in Miami-Dade and Biden won't be so far in the panhandle this time round. Think Dade will be Biden's worst performing county relative to 2016 - Duval (Jacksonville) will be much better for him though.
I have long given up responding to HYUFD on any issue relating to polling. But, his insistence on Trafalgar as the only outfit worth listening to this election because of their 'performance' in 2016 has me wondering a question. Has any polling outfit (since there has been a large number to pick from) ever been the most accurate pollster in 2 or more GEs in a row in a major Western Democracy? Ok, let's narrow that down to 'in the US or the UK'?
Survation final poll 2017 Tories +1% Result Tories +2%
Survation final poll 2019 Tories +11% Result Tories +12%
What I wonder is IF (and yes its a big IF) Trafalgar (and HYUFD) are right and for the second time the other pollsters, pundits have failed to pick up missing Trump votes (shy or otherwise) what it would mean for not just the polling companies but sites like 538, Even though as others have said they aggregate others polls, their predictions based on that would be so horribly out again it would severely damage the reputations they repaired somewhat in 2018 after getting 2016 wrong (in regards state polling) I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen. The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
Trafalgar, Trafalgar, Trafalgar. Did you miss RCS exposition on Trafalgar FFS?
Trump +1 in Arizona is not a good poll for Trump. If Trump finishes +1 in Arizona then Biden has won the Electoral College.
Not if Trafalgar is again the only pollster to correctly have predicted Trump will win Michigan, as it was also in 2016
The question is why you deride people for questioning why you treat that 'if' as a 'when'.
I of course could not care less what people on here think, if Biden wins the EC on November 3rd I will admit Trafalgar was wrong and therefore I was wrong.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
Not let people forget what? Most people here acknowledge that Trump has a small chance of winning.
While confidently crowing about a Biden landslide and dismissing any evidence to the contrary, particularly Trafalgar, with a few exceptions like contrarian and obviously Mr Ed
I haven't noticed much confident crowing about landslides. I have diffidently bet on a victory, margin not specified, and if I lose my money it seems harsh that I and others like me should be subject to four years of not being allowed to forgettery. And your right to crow is certainly correlated to your preparedness to put money where mouth is (check out the B in PB), so what's your betting position on this?
I said last week I had made a small bet on a narrow Trump EC win at 6/1
Can we shut the fuck up about trafalgar please we will know in 12 days time.
We do manage to get some things right in this country and one of them is that we have month-long election campaigns rather than American style year-long ones.
What I wonder is IF (and yes its a big IF) Trafalgar (and HYUFD) are right and for the second time the other pollsters, pundits have failed to pick up missing Trump votes (shy or otherwise) what it would mean for not just the polling companies but sites like 538, Even though as others have said they aggregate others polls, their predictions based on that would be so horribly out again it would severely damage the reputations they repaired somewhat in 2018 after getting 2016 wrong (in regards state polling) I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen. The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
Indeed but luckily for them Trump could not run again in 2024, there is highly unlikely to be a shy Pence vote for instance as there is a shy Trump vote, just as there was no shy Romney vote in 2012
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
For me the most important thing is not the sum it is the percentage.
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63% If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75% If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
I agree, but be wary. The only way to reduce the taper rate, without spending a lot more money, is to reduce the basic amount paid before applying the taper, or to introduce the start of the taper at a lower level.
Both those things make the effective tax rate better, but make the very poorest people poorer.
Perhaps though I would argue that the Laffer Curve would be in play here.
You can argue whether a tax rate is to the left or right of the peak of the Laffer Curve but effective 90% rates must be to the right of many people's peak of the curve.
The Laffer Curve does not just effect the richest in society it can apply to the poorest too.
That's frowned upon these days, I believe, the "Laffer Curve". And quite rightly.
What I wonder is IF (and yes its a big IF) Trafalgar (and HYUFD) are right and for the second time the other pollsters, pundits have failed to pick up missing Trump votes (shy or otherwise) what it would mean for not just the polling companies but sites like 538, Even though as others have said they aggregate others polls, their predictions based on that would be so horribly out again it would severely damage the reputations they repaired somewhat in 2018 after getting 2016 wrong (in regards state polling) I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen. The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
The real danger is that they are wrong again but for a different reason.
Most have adjusted their weightings for HS and WWC voters who voted in unprecedented numbers in 2016. What if these groups lapse back into their previous dilatory habits? What if Afro-Caribbeans and Hispanics turn out in larger numbers than usual? You could have a massive polling miss (although this time it would probably underestimate the Democrat vote.)
People are not machines. Pollsters cannot measure their intentions unerringly. They do on the whole a pretty good job, but at the end of the day people can and do reserve the right to change their minds, late if they want to, and defy all predictions.
James O'Brien going on the government's backflip to blame the kids for being hungry. Why? he asks.
Its simple. Work doesn't pay. Universal Credit doesn't work. But they insist both are fine therefore kids can't be hungry unless they are feckless iPhone owners. They can't feed these hungry kids because to do so is to admit that work doesn't pay and UC doesn't work and their whole pack of cards falls down.
As this goes on, I suspect the UC mirage will dissipate anyway. Its one thing for Tory voters to insist UC - of which they know nothing Jon Snow - is largesse when its other people complaining about penury, another thing when its them being dumped onto it and discovering they are entitled to fuck all AND now being blamed for their situation by their former allies.
UC isn't fuck all.
The biggest problem with UC though is the taper rate (and it's predecessors were worse) which means that people on it are punitively taxed if they earn more.
Go and live on it for a year and then come back to tell us all about how it is largesse really.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I didn't use. I never said it was largesse I said it isn't fuck all.
There is a difference between fuck all and largesse.
If you are claiming for multiple children, housing benefit etc then you can be talking well over a thousand pounds a month, that is not fuck all, nor is it largesse.
If it was up to me I would like to (as I said) address the taper rate to make UC more generous not less.
A grand a month. To house, feed and clothe a family with 2+ children. Is fuck all.
I never said just a grand a month I said well over.
And do you have any idea what someone working full time on minimum wage takes home after tax and national insurance?
This is why I want us to tax the poorest less, have a UBI/Negative Income Tax and not tax the poorest 80% plus. What's wrong with that?
For everyone's benefit, a single person over the age of 25 working 37.5 hours at minimum wage a week takes home the following per month:
Gross: £1,417 National Insurance: -£75 Income Tax: -£75 Net: £1,267
Assuming no pension contributions, no tax credits, no student loan, etc.
Precisely my point.
Universal Credit gives a comparable amount (more even) than working full time on minimum wage. But anyone on that will be on a marginal tax rate of at least 63% and potentially upto 90% or so. It is insane.
I just put a single unemployed 26-year-old into a benefits calculator and the allowance is £410 a month. Plus an allowance for housing and council tax.
I am noticing that this is an area where the relevant hard data is difficult to find. Like what is the average total UC payout to a family with 2 children, including additional payments, and what is the value of the various subsidies and supports like FSM and council tax rebate. People can debate between large figures like £20k per annum, (obviously loads more than minimum wage) and £5k per annum for single blokes with no family and without consideration of housing costs, but it is not informative.
Usually when data is a bit hard to find someone does not want someone else to know something. I suspect both Tory governments and poverty spokespeople of having some data to hide.
For me the most important thing is not the sum it is the percentage.
If someone is on UC below NI Threshold their basic taper rate (effective tax rate) is 63% If someone is over NI Threshold their effective tax rate is close to 75% If someone is over Income Tax threshold their effective tax rate is close to 90%
We don't tax the richest in society 90% so why do we tax the poorest that?
I agree, but be wary. The only way to reduce the taper rate, without spending a lot more money, is to reduce the basic amount paid before applying the taper, or to introduce the start of the taper at a lower level.
Both those things make the effective tax rate better, but make the very poorest people poorer.
Perhaps though I would argue that the Laffer Curve would be in play here.
You can argue whether a tax rate is to the left or right of the peak of the Laffer Curve but effective 90% rates must be to the right of many people's peak of the curve.
The Laffer Curve does not just effect the richest in society it can apply to the poorest too.
That's frowned upon these days, I believe, the "Laffer Curve". And quite rightly.
What I wonder is IF (and yes its a big IF) Trafalgar (and HYUFD) are right and for the second time the other pollsters, pundits have failed to pick up missing Trump votes (shy or otherwise) what it would mean for not just the polling companies but sites like 538, Even though as others have said they aggregate others polls, their predictions based on that would be so horribly out again it would severely damage the reputations they repaired somewhat in 2018 after getting 2016 wrong (in regards state polling) I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen. The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
The real danger is that they are wrong again but for a different reason.
Most have adjusted their weightings for HS and WWC voters who voted in unprecedented numbers in 2016. What if these groups lapse back into their previous dilatory habits? What if Afro-Caribbeans and Hispanics turn out in larger numbers than usual? You could have a massive polling miss (although this time it would probably underestimate the Democrat vote.)
People are not machines. Pollsters cannot measure their intentions unerringly. They do on the whole a pretty good job, but at the end of the day people can and do reserve the right to change their minds, late if they want to, and defy all predictions.
The most likely source of error is an unexpected dynamic in a particular demographic that bucks the trend and was missed because of undersampling.
What I wonder is IF (and yes its a big IF) Trafalgar (and HYUFD) are right and for the second time the other pollsters, pundits have failed to pick up missing Trump votes (shy or otherwise) what it would mean for not just the polling companies but sites like 538, Even though as others have said they aggregate others polls, their predictions based on that would be so horribly out again it would severely damage the reputations they repaired somewhat in 2018 after getting 2016 wrong (in regards state polling) I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen. The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
Well to be fair the pollsters generally did very well in 2018 with their polling after most started weighting by education, Trafalgar did not stick out like they did for 2 states in 2016, they did average.
So unless Trafalgar only work when Trump is running and the others don't at all then the pollsters have proven themselves once in the heat of battle since 2016.
Comments
Some pollsters simply don't bother.
If
Trafalgar are like someone saying every single dice throw is going to be a six, then you cherrypick the one example where a six was rolled as evidence they were great disregarding all the others.
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/1319245724240969730?s=20
But what he says makes sense (to me anyway).
I suppose if the Trafalgar polls prove to be crap this time around you'll ignore that in 2024 and keep parroting that in 2016 they got Pennsylvania right!
On the second, IDK, Sunak seems generally likeable and inoffensive and not being a hate figure like Boris means he can say such things without it seeming wholly insincere, but I don't know how excited we should be by his tone.
But for - London postcode.
If 1 pollster predicts Trump will win a state by 20% and another predicts Biden will win it by 1% and Trump wins it by 0.5% then which pollster was more accurate?
Michigan - Trump +2
Wisconsin - Biden +1
Pennsylvania - Biden +1
Florida - Trump +2
Arizona - Trump +4
Ohio - Trump +4
North Carolina - Trump +2
All else being the same as 2016, Trump wins 276 - 262.
You are right about Arizona. Trump +1 isn't exactly a good result, although personally I think Biden will take it. It's Florida that is surprising me. I had it down as strong for The Orange One but it's starting to look like a Biden romp.
If he takes that AND Pennsylvania he's President, by a distance.
If however Trump narrowly wins the electoral college I will not let people forget it (I remain of the view Biden will win the popular vote)
https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1319244422790467586
So you are going into battle against an organisation whose function includes running PR campaigns for people.
US Presidential Election 2020 - Popular Vote Winner Betting Odds
Joe Biden
1/6
If there is evidence then people with more integrity than Paul the Octopus 🐙 (h/t TUD) in their methodology should be able to find it.
None of that is to say he won't call a handful of swing states correctly, he just won't use science to do it.
Damn close run thing.
One thing that I have to say about Rishi is that he doesn't seem to be afraid to admit his own mistakes. Other cabinet ministers will continue taking the country down the wrong path rather than admit they were wrong, he's definitely a cut above the rest of them.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1319255911483928577?s=20
Survation final poll 2019 Tories +11% Result Tories +12%
I find it incredible to think that its possible for the second time a company like Trafalgar (working in the way Robert suggested in his recent header) would have found the correct polling formula over all (or most) of the in theory more reputable and higher rated posters,,,,,,and yet,,,it could happen.
The pollsters would take such a pasting over it if they are so wrong again. Did they really not learn from 2016 after all?
Most have adjusted their weightings for HS and WWC voters who voted in unprecedented numbers in 2016. What if these groups lapse back into their previous dilatory habits? What if Afro-Caribbeans and Hispanics turn out in larger numbers than usual? You could have a massive polling miss (although this time it would probably underestimate the Democrat vote.)
People are not machines. Pollsters cannot measure their intentions unerringly. They do on the whole a pretty good job, but at the end of the day people can and do reserve the right to change their minds, late if they want to, and defy all predictions.
So unless Trafalgar only work when Trump is running and the others don't at all then the pollsters have proven themselves once in the heat of battle since 2016.