Don’t forget readers that your clocks go back 1 hour tonight unless you live in Scotland in which event they go back 60 minutes.
That's half a haggis of extra cost for those that power their clocks that way.
You're really not getting this are you? 60 minutes means half a haggis less thanks to the extraordinary generosity and commitment of the Scottish Government protecting us from the powers that be (for now).
#SNP: different for the sake of it.
58% on constituencies, 51% for Westminster, +49% for Nicola and 58% for Yes is certainly different from Boris Plainlynotgodunov & his starve the poor party. I'm sure BJ would try and copy it if he had the slightest clue how to.
Trafalgar might get lucky again but that won’t confirm if they actually do polls rather than just take the polling average from others and add on their social desirability factor .
Has HYUFD given his reasoning for WHY Trafalgar did so badly in 2018 Mid-terms? I mean, after all, if their method is so superior then they must have some very good base data from which they can then import their "shy Trump" adjustment.
Is he suggesting that for some reason they were under the impression that Trump was on the ballot in 2018 and made the mistake of including the "adjustment" to their sound base data?
Or is it in reality that their base date, if it exists at all, is just a crock of sh*t? Or that the base data is just what other pollsters do with 6pts added to Trump? In which case he should perhaps answer the question i have repeatedly asked him about what he thinks the impact is of the changes in methodology that most pollsters have made since 2016... Which might rather undermine the Trafalgar "model"...
They weren't that bad even in 2018, they correctly had DeSantis winning Florida unlike other pollsters they only got Georgia really badly wrong and in the article I linked to he admits that but overall they still were far better at identifying the shy Trump vote in 2016 than other pollsters were, especially in the rustbelt
In every poll that I have seen that has asked Americans how they think their neighbours are voting, Trump has a huge lead.
Indicative of a shy Trump factor? has to be, for me.
I don't follow that. If Americans think their neighbours are voting Trump, it doesn't indicate that their neighbours are shy. Quite the opposite.
Massive difference between your neighbour and a pollster. Ask the honest pollsters how easy it is to get responses from some big Trump supporting rural areas in swing states.
Some firms don;t even bother. They just poll the liberal cities. That's why I reckon they are a country mile out.
Which firms don't poll rural areas? Nate Cohn who does the NYT polling has been tweeting maps of where their respondents are, they're definitely not limited to liberal cities...
Clearly faked in contrarian world.
It also doesn't explain why the national polls and the polls in 2018 were largely spot on.
Perhaps he'll share his wisdom (sic) with us all.
2018 did not have Trump on the ballot that is why.
There was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy Trump vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, who are sometimes Trump Democrats in effect, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
Florida, he voted in New York in 2016, he chose Florida for 2020 as New York is in the bag for him.
Plus Trump is following the standard course for so many Americans, spend their working lives in New York and once they get to retirement age move to sunny Florida
Due to me bolloxing up yesterday's Abel & Cole order we are doing a 'click & collect' Waitrose shop tomorrow. My first visit to a supermarket since early March. I'm not sure whether we'll actually have to enter the store. Hopefully not.
To comply with social distancing you will need your wicketkeeping gloves. Stand by the open car boot and you will be fine.
Has HYUFD given his reasoning for WHY Trafalgar did so badly in 2018 Mid-terms? I mean, after all, if their method is so superior then they must have some very good base data from which they can then import their "shy Trump" adjustment.
Is he suggesting that for some reason they were under the impression that Trump was on the ballot in 2018 and made the mistake of including the "adjustment" to their sound base data?
Or is it in reality that their base date, if it exists at all, is just a crock of sh*t? Or that the base data is just what other pollsters do with 6pts added to Trump? In which case he should perhaps answer the question i have repeatedly asked him about what he thinks the impact is of the changes in methodology that most pollsters have made since 2016... Which might rather undermine the Trafalgar "model"...
They weren't that bad even in 2018, they correctly had DeSantis winning Florida unlike other pollsters they only got Georgia really badly wrong and in the article I linked to he admits that but overall they still were far better at identifying the shy Trump vote in 2016 than other pollsters were, especially in the rustbelt
In every poll that I have seen that has asked Americans how they think their neighbours are voting, Trump has a huge lead.
Indicative of a shy Trump factor? has to be, for me.
I don't follow that. If Americans think their neighbours are voting Trump, it doesn't indicate that their neighbours are shy. Quite the opposite.
Massive difference between your neighbour and a pollster. Ask the honest pollsters how easy it is to get responses from some big Trump supporting rural areas in swing states.
Some firms don;t even bother. They just poll the liberal cities. That's why I reckon they are a country mile out.
Which firms don't poll rural areas? Nate Cohn who does the NYT polling has been tweeting maps of where their respondents are, they're definitely not limited to liberal cities...
Clearly faked in contrarian world.
It also doesn't explain why the national polls and the polls in 2018 were largely spot on.
Perhaps he'll share his wisdom (sic) with us all.
2018 did not have Trump on the ballot that is why.
There was no shy Trump vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy GOP vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
But the national polls had Trump on the ballot in 2016, and they were broadly right.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
Has HYUFD given his reasoning for WHY Trafalgar did so badly in 2018 Mid-terms? I mean, after all, if their method is so superior then they must have some very good base data from which they can then import their "shy Trump" adjustment.
Is he suggesting that for some reason they were under the impression that Trump was on the ballot in 2018 and made the mistake of including the "adjustment" to their sound base data?
Or is it in reality that their base date, if it exists at all, is just a crock of sh*t? Or that the base data is just what other pollsters do with 6pts added to Trump? In which case he should perhaps answer the question i have repeatedly asked him about what he thinks the impact is of the changes in methodology that most pollsters have made since 2016... Which might rather undermine the Trafalgar "model"...
They weren't that bad even in 2018, they correctly had DeSantis winning Florida unlike other pollsters they only got Georgia really badly wrong and in the article I linked to he admits that but overall they still were far better at identifying the shy Trump vote in 2016 than other pollsters were, especially in the rustbelt
In every poll that I have seen that has asked Americans how they think their neighbours are voting, Trump has a huge lead.
Indicative of a shy Trump factor? has to be, for me.
I don't follow that. If Americans think their neighbours are voting Trump, it doesn't indicate that their neighbours are shy. Quite the opposite.
Massive difference between your neighbour and a pollster. Ask the honest pollsters how easy it is to get responses from some big Trump supporting rural areas in swing states.
Some firms don;t even bother. They just poll the liberal cities. That's why I reckon they are a country mile out.
Which firms don't poll rural areas? Nate Cohn who does the NYT polling has been tweeting maps of where their respondents are, they're definitely not limited to liberal cities...
Clearly faked in contrarian world.
It also doesn't explain why the national polls and the polls in 2018 were largely spot on.
Perhaps he'll share his wisdom (sic) with us all.
2018 did not have Trump on the ballot that is why.
There was no shy Trump vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy GOP vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
But the national polls had Trump on the ballot in 2016, and they were broadly right.
Not entirely, the final national 2016 poll average had it Clinton 45.5% and Trump 42.2% so they underestimated the Trump vote by more than the Clinton vote and we know the state polls underestimated the Trump vote even more in rustbelt swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and in Florida
Serious question @HYUFD, why do you think that the polling organisations are still underweighting Trump supporters, when they have corrected their methodologies in relation to education, etc, since 2016 to account for this?
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
I don't think that tells you much, Trump is still within range of an EC win on all those 4 IBID/TIPP polls, I have never said Biden will not win the national popular vote
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
I don't think that tells you much, Trump is still within range of an EC win on all those 4 IBID/TIPP polls, I have never said Biden will not win the national popular vote
Yeah, but Trump's chances of winning are incredibly tiny if Biden is hitting 51% and Trump is struggling to stay above 45%.
And it does tell us something - it tells us that there is no continuing tightening trend.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
"Tim", although he was utterly obsessive, and occasionally rather nasty, could also make some good points and be surprisingly insightful and funny at times.
I remember some vicious clashes with SeanT, and he really had it in for George Osborne, with Cameron not far behind, but sometimes when he wasn't on his hobby-horse he was a must read.
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
I don't think that tells you much, Trump is still within range of an EC win on all those 4 IBID/TIPP polls, I have never said Biden will not win the national popular vote
Yeah, but Trump's chances of winning are incredibly tiny if Biden is hitting 51% and Trump is struggling to stay above 45%.
And it does tell us something - it tells us that there is no continuing tightening trend.
51% plus 45% makes 96% not 100%, add the likely 1 or 2% shy Trumps to the 2 or 3% Others and you get to Trump 46% or 47%.
If it is Biden 51/50% and Trump 46/47% then Trump could certainly narrowly win the EC, Biden 50% and Trump 47% would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and may not be enough for Biden to take tipping point Wisconsin for example
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
"Tim", although he was utterly obsessive, and occasionally rather nasty, could also make some good points and be surprisingly insightful and funny at times.
I remember some vicious clashes with SeanT, and he really had it in for George Osborne, with Cameron not far behind, but sometimes when he wasn't on his hobby-horse he was a must read.
I was specifically commenting on his Angela Rayner comment.
He was an astute political punter inspire of anything else.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
I don't think that tells you much, Trump is still within range of an EC win on all those 4 IBID/TIPP polls, I have never said Biden will not win the national popular vote
Yeah, but Trump's chances of winning are incredibly tiny if Biden is hitting 51% and Trump is struggling to stay above 45%.
And it does tell us something - it tells us that there is no continuing tightening trend.
51% plus 45% makes 96% not 100%, add the likely 1 or 2% shy Trumps to the 2 or 3% Others and you get to Trump 46% or 47%.
If it is Biden 51/50% and Trump 46/47% then Trump could certainly narrowly win the EC, Biden 50% and Trump 47% would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and may not be enough for Biden to take tipping point Wisconsin for example
Your theory of "shy trumpers" is just that. A theory.
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
There are 8% 'undecideds' in that poll, if they are all shy Trumps then Trump wins the District again
The point has gone way, way, way over your head, as usual.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
I grant you, but they weren't making a point about unearned wealth, they just pointed out there are poor people. Perhaps they also have a problem with the unearned bit, but I cannot presume that from their comments.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
But has built up a massive personal fortune which she will pass on to her feckless children
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
The Dems shouldn't even be close in the Michigan 3rd district. If it is close, then Trump can kiss the state goodbye. That's small town blue collar going Democratic blue.
Revealed: how elderly paid price of protecting NHS from Covid-19.
While ministers delayed lockdown, soaring cases were putting immense pressure on hospitals. Our investigation shows officials devised a brutal ‘triage tool’ to keep the elderly and frail away.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
I think there are a lot of wealthy Queens.
Like the drag act that a got £200k bailout in public money the other week?
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
But has built up a massive personal fortune which she will pass on to her feckless children
Not sure about feckless. An excessive amount of fecking has been a problem for some of them.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
What! You can have a country with the Royal family having a thousand clocks AND a benefits budget of £191 billion to feed all those lovely children. Amazing. And free school meals for lots of them most of the year as well. Unbelievable. And a free media for all the Guardianistas to complain about it. What's not to like ask the North Koreans, Venezuelans and Cubans? Prime Minister Corbyn must be doing well and be greatly loved by a grateful people.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Nor do I. I think I should inherit the Queen's wealth.
New restrictions in Valencia, 12 to 6 curfew, limit of six in any group situation indoors or out and other measures, not restrictive to me but aimed at stopping bottle parties in the parks etc and curtailing late night eating and drinking. Valencia has the lowest infection rate on the mainland but clearly see the direction of travel. Murcia next door facing draconian actions shortly I think.
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Jeremy Corbyn inherited quite a lo...you’re right, nothing.
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
The Dems shouldn't even be close in the Michigan 3rd district. If it is close, then Trump can kiss the state goodbye. That's small town blue collar going Democratic blue.
Trump won Michigan 3rd with a lower voteshare than Mitt Romney got and his lead there was far smaller than George W Bush's in 2000 and 2004 or even Bob Dole's in 1996, it is not typical of Michigan which Trump won for the first time for any GOP candidate since 1988
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
I'm not clear on what you think will happen in Texas?
Serious question @HYUFD, why do you think that the polling organisations are still underweighting Trump supporters, when they have corrected their methodologies in relation to education, etc, since 2016 to account for this?
Don't expect an answer. I've been asking him this question for days.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Excellent post, Robert - and very plausible.
I particularly 'like' Alaska falling*.
(*this has nothing whatsoever to do with the 11/2 bet I have on the Dems with Betway)
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Nor do I. I think I should inherit the Queen's wealth.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Doesn’t America know how many eligible voters it has?
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Nor do I. I think I should inherit the Queen's wealth.
Andrew? Is that you??
On second thoughts, if THAT'S what I need to be to get a share, they can keep it.
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
The Dems shouldn't even be close in the Michigan 3rd district. If it is close, then Trump can kiss the state goodbye. That's small town blue collar going Democratic blue.
Trump won Michigan 3rd with a lower voteshare than Mitt Romney got and his lead there was far smaller than George W Bush's in 2000 and 2004 or even Bob Dole's in 1996, it is not typical of Michigan which Trump won for the first time for any GOP candidate since 1988
Trump won by 10 points! Come on man, see past your blinkers.
How can you spin a district won by Trump by 10 points (thus more Trump than the state average) looking increasingly Democrat as a positive thing for Trump!?
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Nor do I. I think I should inherit the Queen's wealth.
Andrew? Is that you??
On second thoughts, if THAT'S what I need to be to get a share, they can keep it.
Serious question @HYUFD, why do you think that the polling organisations are still underweighting Trump supporters, when they have corrected their methodologies in relation to education, etc, since 2016 to account for this?
Don't expect an answer. I've been asking him this question for days.
It is silent Trumps which was the key and which pollsters got wrong in the rustbelt, ie those who say they are undecided but when you ask who their neighbours will vote for say Trump.
Underweighting I doubt made much difference and if they overweight this time non college educated whites and underweight African Americans they will miss the swing to Trump amongst Black Americans relative to 2016
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
What has anyone who has ever inherited wealth done? The Queen's role is Head of State and that is what she is funded for
Indeed. That's why inheritance tax makes sense.
Well I wouldn't eliminate inheritance tax no but I have no problem with inherited wealth, I am a Tory after all
Thanks to @rcs1000, @bigjohnowls@OnlyLivingBoy and everyone else for their e-mails on the Florida IPEV vote. I can’t properly get the hang of the vanilla thing so apologies if I seemed rude in not replying / contributing
Serious question @HYUFD, why do you think that the polling organisations are still underweighting Trump supporters, when they have corrected their methodologies in relation to education, etc, since 2016 to account for this?
Don't expect an answer. I've been asking him this question for days.
It is silent Trumps which was the key and which pollsters got wrong in the rustbelt, ie those who say they are undecided but when you ask who their neighbours will vote for say Trump.
Underweighting I doubt made much difference and if they overweight this time non college educated whites and underweight African Americans they will miss the swing to Trump amongst Black Americans relative to 2016
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Eh, people say that sort of thing on every story about the Royals. The second one is basically 'Rich people exist in a country where there are poor people as well'.
What have the Royals done to earn their wealth?
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
I grant you, but they weren't making a point about unearned wealth, they just pointed out there are poor people. Perhaps they also have a problem with the unearned bit, but I cannot presume that from their comments.
Either you are a communist or socialist and believe in heavy tax of both earned income and assets and inherited wealth and redistribution to the poor via the state and benefits system, or you are a liberal and believe in taxation of inheritance and assets but less so of income of you are a Tory like me and believe taxes on income, inheritance and wealth are best kept relatively low
Serious question @HYUFD, why do you think that the polling organisations are still underweighting Trump supporters, when they have corrected their methodologies in relation to education, etc, since 2016 to account for this?
Don't expect an answer. I've been asking him this question for days.
It is silent Trumps which was the key and which pollsters got wrong in the rustbelt, ie those who say they are undecided but when you ask who their neighbours will vote for say Trump.
Underweighting I doubt made much difference and if they overweight this time non college educated whites and underweight African Americans they will miss the swing to Trump amongst Black Americans relative to 2016
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
I'm not clear on what you think will happen in Texas?
Democrats win it at the Presidential level, but Cornyn hangs on in the Senate.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
I'm not clear on what you think will happen in Texas?
Democrats win it at the Presidential level, but Cornyn hangs on in the Senate.
Interesting to see where this movement goes, as it comes up against the complexity of changing things.
George Floyd death: A city pledged to abolish its police. Then what?
...
Nearly five months on, however, ambitious policy efforts to address police violence in Minneapolis have slammed into bureaucratic roadblocks and public opposition.
British businesses are the most likely to feel adequately supported among the large European economies – but their outlook is also the most pessimistic
The Chancellor today announced further COVID-19 support to businesses through what he branded the world’s most generous short-time work scheme. YouGov data shows that even before the new measures, British businesses were the most likely to say the government had provided enough support during the coronavirus crisis in a survey including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
About half of businesses in Britain (48%) felt adequately supported before today’s announcement. This is significantly higher than in Germany (28%), Italy (28%), France (24%) and Spain (13%).
In contrast, a quarter of Spanish businesses (27%) said the government had not provided any support. This sentiment is also more common in Italy (22%), Germany (17%) and France (16%) compared with Britain (8%).
Have we discussed today's IBD/TIPP in relation to the last 4 days? Pretty flat really. All the polling is flat. I can't see anything that will reverse Trump's fortunes really. @HYUFD is going to have to hope for the mother of all polling errors.
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%) Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%) Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%) Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5% Trump 46%
IBD/TIPP is a legit pollster (If slightly r leaning) - they just had an outlier sample one day.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
A recommendation. Click on the picture and expand it. What you will notice is that, at the front of that queue particularly, there are large gaps between people who are maintaining social distancing.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
I'm unclear what your point is. Are you saying that Biden wont run up the score in Cleveland and New York?
Comments
There was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 nor was there a shy vote for a moderate establishment Republican candidate like Romney in 2012.
There is a shy Trump vote however this year as there was in 2016, shy Trumps are not on the whole his core fanbase of the white working class, who are sometimes Trump Democrats in effect, rather they tend to be surburban voters, often college educated men in particular who normally vote Republican and will vote for Trump as he is the GOP nominee even though they are embarrassed by him and would not want their Biden voting friends and professional colleagues to know they are voting for him
https://twitter.com/SquawkaNews/status/1320038342260568073
https://www.google.com/amp/s/vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-election-2020-live-results/wcm/8c3c4f4a-0d46-4199-941c-ec73f459493a/amp/
We had thread after thread with this stuff from Tim in.. ooh.. 2009.
Those were the days - bless him.
https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1319009441270747136
24th October (Today):
Biden 50.7% (+0.9%)
Trump 44.3% (-0.9%)
23rd October (Yesterday):
Biden 49.8% (-0.2%)
Trump 45.2% (+0.2%)
22nd October:
Biden 50% (+1.5%)
Trump 45% (-1%)
21st October:
Biden 48.5%
Trump 46%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1320045740115349504?s=19
And it does tell us something - it tells us that there is no continuing tightening trend.
https://twitter.com/Seb_Varney/status/1320046182664704000
Thanks Boris, you're making the Queen and the Royals unpopular.
Anyway Biden is going to run up the score some more today with huge lines in New York but perhaps more importantly Cleveland, Ohio.
https://twitter.com/HomaBashWEWS/status/1319987022614962176
They've clearly never been on this forum!
Trump 50% (-6.2%)
Biden 46% (+10.2%)
Changes from 2016.
1) Do you think Die Hard is a Christmas film?
2) Do you think pineapple is an acceptable topping on a pizza?
If your answer isn't an emphatic no to both then we deserve a full on culture war.
I remember some vicious clashes with SeanT, and he really had it in for George Osborne, with Cameron not far behind, but sometimes when he wasn't on his hobby-horse he was a must read.
If it is Biden 51/50% and Trump 46/47% then Trump could certainly narrowly win the EC, Biden 50% and Trump 47% would be a less than 1% swing from 2016 and may not be enough for Biden to take tipping point Wisconsin for example
https://twitter.com/common_bar/status/1319936109221187585
https://twitter.com/common_bar/status/1319936863365484544
https://twitter.com/common_bar/status/1319945734310006785
https://twitter.com/common_bar/status/1319953542292119552
He was an astute political punter inspire of anything else.
We can't work hard to become monarch, but we can work hard to become rich.
Don't say you don't get good value from me
TL;DR - The Democrats have not won MI-3 since Watergate, and it's looking like they will. Not good news for Trump in Michigan.
"Strategic National" claim they were one of the few pollsters to correctly identify the enthusiasm of normally non-voters to vote for Trump in Michigan.
They do not normally weight by political party identification as they believe it's better for this to "float". However their raw samples are coming back as very democrat heavy so they have released two headline figures. One using their "float" data and one weighting Republicans +4.
They emphasise however the following:
Again it must be emphasized that the random sample was Democrat +4 and therefore there is a very good chance that the party identification at this point in time in the 3rd Congressional District is indeed closer to Democrat +4.
The results:
The Democrat +4 ballot test has Scholten at 50% and Meijer at 42% of the vote. Only 8% of respondents say they are undecided. The candidate image also shows a large disparity between Scholten and Meijer. 49% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Scholten while 30% have an unfavorable opinion (+19). For Meijer, 37% have a favorable opinion and 39% have an unfavorable opinion (-2).
The Republican +4 ballot test has Scholten and Meijer both with 46% of the vote. Only 7% of respondents say they are undecided. Scholten performs better than Meijer in the candidate image questions. 46% of respondents have a favorable opinion of Schoten while 33% have an unfavorable opinion (+13). For Meijer, 42% have a favorable opinion and 37% have an unfavorable opinion (+5).
Only in America.
While ministers delayed lockdown, soaring cases were putting immense pressure on hospitals. Our investigation shows officials devised a brutal ‘triage tool’ to keep the elderly and frail away.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/revealed-how-elderly-paid-price-of-protecting-nhs-from-covid-19-7n62kkbtb
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1320054265352720385
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADIa7IGbfR4&t=78
Here's my forecast for the 2020 Presidential and Senate elections.
I think turnout is going to be way up on 2016. Now, it is worth remembering that quoted turnout numbers are of all adults and around 14% of the US population is not American (like me), and therefore not eligible to vote. This means that real turnout in 2016 was actually 64-65% rather than the quoted 55.5%.
I think turnout in 2020 is going to be around 70% of voting age adults, which is about 159 million votes.
High School educated voters are less likely to vote than college educated ones, historically, and I forecast President Trump's vote total to increase an unprecedented 5 million.
Unfortunately for him, that only gets him to 42-43% of the vote.
By contrast, I expect Joe Biden to get in excess of 50% of the vote, perhaps 53-54%.
In other words, I expect the polling error to reverse. In aggregate the polls will be wrong about 2% this year, but in favour of the Democrat, not the Republican.
This 10-12 percentage point lead will result in a raft of disastrous races for the Republicans. I expect them to lose Florida and Texas, among others.
This will be a disaster down ticket for the Republicans. No, I don't expect them to lose Texas - but I suspect they will drop Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Iowa, Montana, Maine, Alaska and Colorado.
Why do I think this?
Simply: polling errors oscillate. And I think early turnout reflects just how much ordinary Democratically aligned voters regret not turning out in 2016. Trump has not expanded his base of voters, and he's pissed off a whole bunch of people who didn't like either him or Hillary, but plumped for him last time. Simply: his base hasn't expanded, while the base of people *really* who don't like him has.
I am long Democratic electoral college votes at 320, and I am long Biden for the Presidency.
I think I should inherit the Queen's wealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan's_3rd_congressional_district
I particularly 'like' Alaska falling*.
(*this has nothing whatsoever to do with the 11/2 bet I have on the Dems with Betway)
How can you spin a district won by Trump by 10 points (thus more Trump than the state average) looking increasingly Democrat as a positive thing for Trump!?
Got to be in it to win it.
Underweighting I doubt made much difference and if they overweight this time non college educated whites and underweight African Americans they will miss the swing to Trump amongst Black Americans relative to 2016
Silent but deadly.
It is one thing saying queues round the block are huge when everyone is crammed together, it is another when they are standing 2m apart
My main bet is long EC supremacy at 28.
George Floyd death: A city pledged to abolish its police. Then what?
...
Nearly five months on, however, ambitious policy efforts to address police violence in Minneapolis have slammed into bureaucratic roadblocks and public opposition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54665665
The Chancellor today announced further COVID-19 support to businesses through what he branded the world’s most generous short-time work scheme. YouGov data shows that even before the new measures, British businesses were the most likely to say the government had provided enough support during the coronavirus crisis in a survey including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
About half of businesses in Britain (48%) felt adequately supported before today’s announcement. This is significantly higher than in Germany (28%), Italy (28%), France (24%) and Spain (13%).
In contrast, a quarter of Spanish businesses (27%) said the government had not provided any support. This sentiment is also more common in Italy (22%), Germany (17%) and France (16%) compared with Britain (8%).
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/finance/articles-reports/2020/10/22/covid-19-how-does-support-business-compare-across-
I suspect that British businesses are being the most realistic in being the most pessimistic about recovery from covid.