He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
Biden’s Gaffes and rambling are priced in . No one cares and even if he did have some cognitive decline there’s such utter loathing of Trump by Dem voters that they’d still vote for Biden even if he walked on stage with his pants on over his trousers ! Americans have a choice , a past his best Biden or a sociopathicTrump .
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
Isn't this an issue of people miss-reporting their own voter registration. i.e - you might be registered republican but voted for Biden, so there's a good chance you might report yourself as registered independent even though you're not?
It's a more dispassionate study of what several posters have claimed on here in the recent past.One wonders whether, should Johnson and Cummings remain in 10 Downing St for much longer, the same will be written about the Conservative party.
Which read and thought has somewhat spoiled what until now, personally and thinking about yesterday, had been quite a good morning. When one is retired Monday's seem different to the way they day during one's working life! Still, at least it isn't raining, and the sky looks clear.
OKC, lucky you, chucking it down here and more to come though it is to clear a bit by Friday. Down to some pesky hurricane circling in the Atlantic. One bonus as I am working it does not bother me too much.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
Isn't this an issue of people miss-reporting their own voter registration. i.e - you might be registered republican but voted for Biden, so there's a good chance you might report yourself as registered independent even though you're not?
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
Biden’s Gaffes and rambling are priced in . No one cares and even if he did have some cognitive decline there’s such utter loathing of Trump by Dem voters that they’d still vote for Biden even if he walked on stage with his pants on over his trousers ! Americans have a choice , a past his best Biden or a sociopathicTrump .
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
Isn't this an issue of people miss-reporting their own voter registration. i.e - you might be registered republican but voted for Biden, so there's a good chance you might report yourself as registered independent even though you're not?
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
Isn't this an issue of people miss-reporting their own voter registration. i.e - you might be registered republican but voted for Biden, so there's a good chance you might report yourself as registered independent even though you're not?
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
Has anyone got the original crosstabs this is quoting? IIUC Party ID is a different thing to Party Registration, ie Party Registration is what you put on the government form when you registered to vote, whereas Party ID is how you identify which party you support if you ask the voter now. If I'm right about that then you can't take numbers from a Party ID poll and apply them directly to the official Party Registration numbers.
Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.
Do tell.
Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.
This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.
Back off mate.
Wrong gender.
I get very suspicious of people pushing rumours or rumours of rumours (as you are despite pretending not to) in the immediate run up to results. It's almost always an attempt to recover losses on the exchanges. So I'll take you at your word but urge you to be wary.
Rose x
After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.
I'm confident Biden will take Florida so not sure what your point is? All reliable opinion polling points that way as do all on the ground reports. The very latest CBS/YouGov out yesterday has Biden ahead +2. Other reliable pollsters have a wider margin still.
If you study Florida with even a modicum of attention to detail you will see why Trump is losing it.
Point is he is saying you are likely losing your butt on Florida and ramping so you cut your losses , exactly what you accused him of you pompous ass.
This is from the person who said they couldn't care a less about betting on the US election.
You're a jerk Malcolm with occasional flashes of genuine humour that are becoming rarer than a hen's tooth. Everyone on here knows it.
Which channel to watch the results on? Weren’t the UK channels accused of talking more than reporting the results last time?
Fox News. Their election coverage is usually pretty good AND you get the added enjoyment if Trump is losing.
+1. Also they're technically excellent - they provide a lovely stable live stream, no geofencing bollocks, works on pretty much any device you try to play it on.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
Biden’s Gaffes and rambling are priced in . No one cares and even if he did have some cognitive decline there’s such utter loathing of Trump by Dem voters that they’d still vote for Biden even if he walked on stage with his pants on over his trousers ! Americans have a choice , a past his best Biden or a sociopathicTrump .
Do people really think that Binden’s sarcasm over Trumps claims to have done more for black people than anybody since Lincoln are signs of cognitive decline rather than the sort of quick thinking you would want in a debate?
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Not in the round.
He was a Bozo fanboy, in the same way that he is a Trump fanboy. Fandom isn't analysis, even when your team wins.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
I suggest if party ID is so far off registration figures then the whole sample is suspect.
Party ID does NOT equal party registration. Florida has closed primaries - so there's a strongish incentive to register with one or other of the parties.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
HYUFD makes some great posts, brings lots of useful facts, and some inspired predictions BUT his grasp of probability and in particular logic is appalling.
Good article (ie one I agree with) which makes the point that the key to this election was always and remains the rust bucket of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, 3 goodsized states Trump won by a plurality of 77k votes in 2016. read://https_www.msn.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2Fen-us%2Fnews%2Felections-2020%2Fpennsylvania-michigan-and-wisconsin-still-hold-the-keys-to-2020%2Far-BB1amjAQ
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
No he didn't. Pretty much everyone, barring a few ardent Corbynistas, believed that Johnson could and would beat Corbyn.
It was the leadership of the Tory Party when Mrs May quit.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
Yes but Boris had been leading almost every poll of Tory members. There was actual evidence from multiple sources. It wasn’t some inspired prediction. This time around the only evidence suggesting an obvious Trump victory is Trafalgar really.
That doesn’t mean Trump wont win but it’s not exactly convincing.
Um...there are rumours of news breaking this morning that could have a big impact on the election.
Do tell.
Doesn't seem to be what I thought it was, which would be pretty wild, so i'll hold off for now.
The main time I see this kind of post is just before election results when people are trying to retrieve their betting losses.
Ha, no it's nothing like that. Besides half 5 in the morning wouldn't be the time for that. I'm just not going to spread a rumour doing the rounds that I couldn't confirm.
No you really are, as said below, almost certainly in danger of pushing something that is bullshit. The 5 am time is meaningless since we live in an internet age and the time right now is 11pm in LA.
This kind of thing happens when people on betting exchanges realise they are about to make losses.
I'm not pushing anything, that's why I said to ignore what I was saying.
Back off mate.
Wrong gender.
I get very suspicious of people pushing rumours or rumours of rumours (as you are despite pretending not to) in the immediate run up to results. It's almost always an attempt to recover losses on the exchanges. So I'll take you at your word but urge you to be wary.
Rose x
After the "tips" you have given, like Florida for Biden, It's a really bad idea to accuse me of trying to manipulate anything for financial gain.
I'm confident Biden will take Florida so not sure what your point is? All reliable opinion polling points that way as do all on the ground reports. The very latest CBS/YouGov out yesterday has Biden ahead +2. Other reliable pollsters have a wider margin still.
If you study Florida with even a modicum of attention to detail you will see why Trump is losing it.
Point is he is saying you are likely losing your butt on Florida and ramping so you cut your losses , exactly what you accused him of you pompous ass.
This is from the person who said they couldn't care a less about betting on the US election.
You're a jerk Malcolm with occasional flashes of genuine humour that are becoming rarer than a hen's tooth. Everyone on here knows it.
You are now the spokesperson for the site now rather than a bag of wind. Jog on, your persona is slipping. PS: I note that you avoid answering the fact that you accuse someone of ramping and then blatantly ramp yourself.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
I suggest if party ID is so far off registration figures then the whole sample is suspect.
Party ID does NOT equal party registration. Florida has closed primaries - so there's a strongish incentive to register with one or other of the parties.
Which will not get you this pattern of party ID.
Anyway, we'll probably be able to tell soon if it's trash as EV progresses this week.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Roger a blind man could have forecast that any donkey could have beaten Corbyn.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Hyufd’s problem is not that he’s not insightful. It’s that he will jump to false conclusions far too early and then stubbornly refuse to admit he’s wrong even when vast quantities of evidence are provided to refute him. Which means, unfortunately, he’s a laughing stock that people don’t take seriously even when he’s right.
On topic, I think the key point here is that if Trump were strolling to re-election North Carolina would not be close.
The fact that it is strongly suggests he is in trouble. On the data so ably marshalled by Mr Smithson Jr looks like a fair number of floating/Dem inclined voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton are turning out to make sure they boot out Trump this time.
He still has time to turn it around if he can mobilise his base effectively in the right states, but it’s looking a narrow and tricky path and he’s clearly flung on the defensive.
Edit - and somewhere in the shades, Morris Dancer’s book from 2016 is weeping quietly at being four years too early.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Roger a blind man could have forecast that any donkey could have beaten Corbyn.
Why didn’t we try? A donkey as PM would be far preferable to Johnson. Less randy for a start.
By the way, what do you make of the CalMac scandal that’s been breaking over the last couple of days?
Which channel to watch the results on? Weren’t the UK channels accused of talking more than reporting the results last time?
Last post from me for the day but it's a perennial problem with US elections. With only 50 states and in different time zones there can be long gaps between results.
Yes, but definitely better to watch a US channel than the British ones, which keep explaining what the Electoral College is and other US Politics 101 stuff. The US can fill in with Senate/House results as well, which the British channels barely bother with.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Hyufd’s problem is not that he’s not insightful. It’s that he will jump to false conclusions far too early and then stubbornly refuse to admit he’s wrong even when vast quantities of evidence are provided to refute him. Which means, unfortunately, he’s a laughing stock that people don’t take seriously even when he’s right.
I don’t know if he has a “problem” or not (and obviously won’t have if he is ultimately “right”) but the frustration is his refusal largely to engage in discussion or debate when challenged. He either ignores sensible questions asked, or just deliberately answers different ones. That’s the simple explanation IMO why tempers flare sometimes leading to accusations that he is being “bullied”.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
...Florida is a state where we know how people are voting by party ID!
That poll claims independent/NPA are 198/603 = 32.8% of its early voters, actually it's 19.5%
The poll claims Republicans are 161/603 = 26.7% of the early vote, it's actually 35.8%
I suggest if party ID is so far off registration figures then the whole sample is suspect.
Party ID does NOT equal party registration. Florida has closed primaries - so there's a strongish incentive to register with one or other of the parties.
Which will not get you this pattern of party ID.
Anyway, we'll probably be able to tell soon if it's trash as EV progresses this week.
Which actually reminds me of something. It looks like this poll was taken not long after in-person voting in Florida started, in fact a lot of Republican counties hadn't begun yet. And we know there is a ridiculous split in voting method/time this time around. So extrapolating from one extreme, mostly VBM, to the whole EV is probably unwise.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Hyufd’s problem is not that he’s not insightful. It’s that he will jump to false conclusions far too early and then stubbornly refuse to admit he’s wrong even when vast quantities of evidence are provided to refute him. Which means, unfortunately, he’s a laughing stock that people don’t take seriously even when he’s right.
I don’t know if he has a “problem” or not (and obviously won’t have if he is ultimately “right”) but the frustration is his refusal largely to engage in discussion or debate when challenged. He either ignores sensible questions asked, or just deliberately answers different ones. That’s the simple explanation IMO why tempers flare sometimes leading to accusations that he is being “bullied”.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
If you listen to the 538 Politics podcast you'll hear how wary Nate Silver is this year because of 2016, and how "conservative" the model is now as a result.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Hyufd’s problem is not that he’s not insightful. It’s that he will jump to false conclusions far too early and then stubbornly refuse to admit he’s wrong even when vast quantities of evidence are provided to refute him. Which means, unfortunately, he’s a laughing stock that people don’t take seriously even when he’s right.
I don’t know if he has a “problem” or not (and obviously won’t have if he is ultimately “right”) but the frustration is his refusal largely to engage in discussion or debate when challenged. He either ignores sensible questions asked, or just deliberately answers different ones. That’s the simple explanation IMO why tempers flare sometimes leading to accusations that he is being “bullied”.
Isn't that simply what politicians do?
No. Politicians go into abrupt reverse, pretend they never said what they said and try and delete all internet records of having said it.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Why do people keep on harking back to WH2016 when the 2018 midterms are more recent and turnout was almost at the same level? Then the pollsters came out really well.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
If you listen to the 538 Politics podcast you'll hear how wary Nate Silver is this year because of 2016, and how "conservative" the model is now as a result.
It's almost inevitable that the polls now understate Biden. In genuinely trying to get it as right as possible pollsters tend to oscillate from overstating one side to overstating the other. Nothing sinister, just a real challenge when so many do not respond to their questions or answer unknown numbers on their phones.
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Why do people keep on harking back to WH2016 when the 2018 midterms are more recent and turnout was almost at the same level? Then the pollsters came out really well.
@HYUFD 's argument is that "Trump" wasn't on the ballot paper in 2018 and thus the "shy Trump supporters", who the pollsters (other than Trafalgar) apparently don't poll, didn't turn out.
I mean he could be right but I don't see much evidence.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Was he not simply a child of his time? If, in several respects a somewhat liberal one. As has been discussed before (ad nauseam?) one cannot asses) the views of people in the past according to the standards and beliefs of today.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
A bit unfair to Lincoln I feel: after all, abolishing slavery is a pretty big step. The US civil war, like all wars, has multiple reasons given for its cause by multiple people, but Lincoln’s election was the spark that set it off due to his attitude towards slavery.
While I don't doubt it's a good bet, those early voting numbers actually don't seem at all bad for Trump in North Carolina, when you compare with the last two rounds of elections. Lots of Southern States have a lot of registered Democrats who vote mainly Republican.
Better, anyway, after twelve hours’ sleep. My knee will actually support me. Thank you for asking. Likewise, I hope you are feeling stronger after your own recent health issues.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
A bit unfair to Lincoln I feel: after all, abolishing slavery is a pretty big step. The US civil war, like all wars, has multiple reasons given for its cause by multiple people, but Lincoln’s election was the spark that set it off due to his attitude towards slavery.
Yes, it's misleading to interpret historical figures by current attitudes - it's like taking a dim view of Marcus Auerlius because he didn't mention gender equality. Lincoln made a necessary start on the process of racial equality, a process that is still not finished.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
Registering Dem or Rep gives you the right to vote in the primaries. With the gerrymandering, and so many safe districts, that is often more important than the actual election.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
It's a more dispassionate study of what several posters have claimed on here in the recent past.One wonders whether, should Johnson and Cummings remain in 10 Downing St for much longer, the same will be written about the Conservative party.
Which read and thought has somewhat spoiled what until now, personally and thinking about yesterday, had been quite a good morning. When one is retired Monday's seem different to the way they day during one's working life! Still, at least it isn't raining, and the sky looks clear.
OKC, lucky you, chucking it down here and more to come though it is to clear a bit by Friday. Down to some pesky hurricane circling in the Atlantic. One bonus as I am working it does not bother me too much.
It's autumn, Malc, what do we expect? And it's not been all that good here, on and off. Chucked it down here Saturday and early Sunday, then cleared. How's Mrs M doing? Still progressing, I hope.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
He freed those that he had the legal power to free (which included very large numbers who followed the Union army). Unlike the current incumbent even in a time of war Lincoln took the Constitution and the rule of law very seriously. But this also ignores that slavery was actually illegal in most of the northern states anyway and the consequences of the war.
Morning all! I am going to come out and predict a Biden landslide. The Trump rallies feel a bit like the Corbyn rallies or the Foot ralles before - cranks and loons turn out, feel brilliant, then wonder why they've lost heavily. As I don't bet I'll be greatly entertained to be proven wrong in my prediction!
@HYUFD Again I know I am repeating myself but do you understand probability and logic? You repeatedly quote Nate Silver getting it wrong in 2016 even after it is shown to you that he didn't.
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
I think Nate Silver's prediction was undoubtedly wrong, on the basis that we know the polls used by it were wrong because they undersampled High School education voters.
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
Why do people keep on harking back to WH2016 when the 2018 midterms are more recent and turnout was almost at the same level? Then the pollsters came out really well.
@HYUFD 's argument is that "Trump" wasn't on the ballot paper in 2018 and thus the "shy Trump supporters", who the pollsters (other than Trafalgar) apparently don't poll, didn't turn out.
I mean he could be right but I don't see much evidence.
To be fair to HYUFD, Trump's "base" of exurban blue collar workers are more likely to not identify as Republican (their backgrounds are historically from Democratic unions). Trump lost some traditional Republicans in 2016 but he gained enough with non-Republicans where it mattered to win. In fact the New Yorker article someone posted earlier mentioned someone in just that demographic.
These people are unlikely to think much of other Republican politicians or the Republican Party in general.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Was he not simply a child of his time? If, in several respects a somewhat liberal one. As has been discussed before (ad nauseam?) one cannot asses) the views of people in the past according to the standards and beliefs of today.
That is true. And of course, he was instrumental in abolishing slavery and it was on his watch that the first former slaves were able to vote in former slave states. But at the same time, it makes the idea of him as some champion of black people a mistaken one.
Truman, I would suggest, Is a better example. As a southerner who had always quite cheerfully accepted Jim Crow while intellectually believing all people were equal but different, as president he was shown what the reality of it was. ‘My God,’ he said, ‘I never knew it was that bad. We gotta do something.’
And at risk of his presidency, he desegregated the armed forces and brought in fair hiring practices. Admittedly, progress was uneven but it was definitely a start.
Which channel to watch the results on? Weren’t the UK channels accused of talking more than reporting the results last time?
Last post from me for the day but it's a perennial problem with US elections. With only 50 states and in different time zones there can be long gaps between results.
The problem with a lot of on-the-day reporting of the US election last time was that the talking heads were not being briefed by people who actually knew anything about US election mechanics.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
He freed those that he had the legal power to free (which included very large numbers who followed the Union army). Unlike the current incumbent even in a time of war Lincoln took the Constitution and the rule of law very seriously. But this also ignores that slavery was actually illegal in most of the northern states anyway and the consequences of the war.
He did have a few problems with the concept of habeus (sp?) corpus though...
Better, anyway, after twelve hours’ sleep. My knee will actually support me. Thank you for asking. Likewise, I hope you are feeling stronger after your own recent health issues.
Good to hear! Is it half term this week? I'm better albeit unmotivated due to the ongoing isolation.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
A bit unfair to Lincoln I feel: after all, abolishing slavery is a pretty big step. The US civil war, like all wars, has multiple reasons given for its cause by multiple people, but Lincoln’s election was the spark that set it off due to his attitude towards slavery.
Yes, it's misleading to interpret historical figures by current attitudes - it's like taking a dim view of Marcus Auerlius because he didn't mention gender equality. Lincoln made a necessary start on the process of racial equality, a process that is still not finished.
And I'm quite sure Biden was being srcastic.
The man mis-speaks and suffers brain fades often enough but this was sarcasm and mockery, all of it deserved. Trump is just an oaf.
What we do not know is the number of Republicans who traditionally are wary of disclosing their affiliation. They are I fear again being discounted in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin and the other northern states which Biden has to win. Trump is close and the Trafalgar polls consistently have him heading for probable victory. That thought is very upsetting top me, but there it is, I fully expect a Trump win on Wednesday next week. If Biden and the Dem do make a clean sweep I sincerely hope they change the stupid electoral system and ensure future votes are based on a simple natioonal majority, after all it is supposed to be a "United" and democratic country.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
A bit unfair to Lincoln I feel: after all, abolishing slavery is a pretty big step. The US civil war, like all wars, has multiple reasons given for its cause by multiple people, but Lincoln’s election was the spark that set it off due to his attitude towards slavery.
I remember reading several volumes of Page Smith's History of the US. He made the good point that it would be very comforting to think that right-thinking people all lined up on one side of the argument, throughout history, and wrong-thinking people lined up on the other, but it's never like that. He pointed out that some abolitionists had really horrible opinions about the lower classes, or American Indians. That doesn't make them wrong about abolition, however.
If accurate the 99-1 Dem registered crossbreak for Biden of voters who have voted thus far in Florida is beyond awful for Trump considering the implications for the rest of the south.
What sort of Dem votes for Trump? Registered 50 years ago I suppose, and never bothered to change. Incidentally, I've often wondered why in the US one does register publicly as voting Rep or Dem. I'm sure I've seen a reason, but I can't recall a good one.
Registering Dem or Rep gives you the right to vote in the primaries. With the gerrymandering, and so many safe districts, that is often more important than the actual election.
Good point, thanks. Underlines the thought that the US claim to be a 'democracy' rests on somewhat shaky foundations.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
That argument is similar to saying that Roosevelt did not defeat the Japanese as he was dead by the time it actually happened...
Well, he didn’t
One of the great unknowns is whether Roosevelt would have used the A bomb. I think personally he would have done, but only after speaking to Stalin and Attlee and getting their express approval.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
He freed those that he had the legal power to free (which included very large numbers who followed the Union army). Unlike the current incumbent even in a time of war Lincoln took the Constitution and the rule of law very seriously. But this also ignores that slavery was actually illegal in most of the northern states anyway and the consequences of the war.
He did have a few problems with the concept of habeus (sp?) corpus though...
Better, anyway, after twelve hours’ sleep. My knee will actually support me. Thank you for asking. Likewise, I hope you are feeling stronger after your own recent health issues.
Good to hear! Is it half term this week? I'm better albeit unmotivated due to the ongoing isolation.
I have to say that I hate online-only teaching.
Frustrating for you. I know how you feel though. One of the things that keeps us going as a profession is that however shite the current situation is, online teaching is worse.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
At risk of being a pedant, Andrew Jackson was President when slavery was abolished.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
What we do not know is the number of Republicans who traditionally are wary of disclosing their affiliation. They are I fear again being discounted in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin and the other northern states which Biden has to win. Trump is close and the Trafalgar polls consistently have him heading for probable victory. That thought is very upsetting top me, but there it is, I fully expect a Trump win on Wednesday next week. If Biden and the Dem do make a clean sweep I sincerely hope they change the stupid electoral system and ensure future votes are based on a simple natioonal majority, after all it is supposed to be a "United" and democratic country.
I think the case for the EC still stands, although the system supporting it needs a thorough review. Including a non-party, or bipartisan Commission to draw the boundaries of electoral districts.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Except that Abraham Lincoln was murdered for advocating voting rights for freed slaves.
His actual assassin, quite specifically, said that listening to the speech in question was what convinced him to turn the original kidnapping plot into murder*.
*Actually multiple murders. An attempt to decapitate the Federal Government.
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Cor. I've never done that and doubt if I ever will. If I do, it'll probably be the last thing I do...
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Try hard not to make it a shocking experience.
You joke though I did shock myself once changing a switch. Was living in a flat and it had multiple circuit breaker panels, turned out I'd isolated the wrong one. Touched the cables together and I jumped backwards at the shock, burnt my fingers for days afterwards.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Except that Abraham Lincoln was murdered for advocating voting rights for freed slaves.
His actual assassin, quite specifically, said that listening to the speech in question was what convinced him to turn the original kidnapping plot into murder*.
*Actually multiple murders. An attempt to decapitate the Federal Government.
And, I think, one has to look at the evolution of Lincoln's views, which was considerable over the last few years of his life. It's an uncharacteristic forcing of history on @ydoethur 's part to say that Lincoln would "have been very happy with Jim Crow". Thanks to his untimely death, we have very little idea what Lincoln, post Civil War, might or might not have been very happy with.
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right! It is the business of the wealthy man To give employment to the artisan.
Better, anyway, after twelve hours’ sleep. My knee will actually support me. Thank you for asking. Likewise, I hope you are feeling stronger after your own recent health issues.
Good to hear! Is it half term this week? I'm better albeit unmotivated due to the ongoing isolation.
I have to say that I hate online-only teaching.
We have a curious hybrid so that all lessons have to be available to do online if students are at home (or indeed used for cover if the teachers are). We have shared the preparation round the department though and now it’s actually working quite well: I’ve found I like marking on Teams as my typing is a lot faster and more legible than my handwriting and I don’t have to collect books in. The more alert pupils have also worked out that the lessons are posted in advance and they can look at what is coming up.
Meanwhile I am teaching lessons at school and as I project the notes I make in the lesson I have been uploading them as well at the end of the lesson. I try not to use pre-prepared notes in lessons any more as copying out walls of text is the most deadly form of teaching. Instead I write the notes as we go, with input from the students, and at a slow enough pace that I don’t usually have to wait for anyone. In fact as they know they will get the notes I often tell them to only write what they think they will need, though that doesn’t work well for the younger ones.
Also of note - Trumps approval rating has leveled off at the 42/43 percent range. Earlier in the month i think Mike picked up that it was heading North, but there's since been very little movement.
Hopefully Nate Silver disqualifies Trafalgar now after those very sketchy crosstabs (which have now since been deleted hilariously). Broken clocks are right twice a day.
That would be the same Nate Silver who forecast Hillary would win over 300 EC votes on eve of poll 2016 while Trafalgar forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania and the EC?
You keep peddling this line that people who got it wrong last time can be ignored the next time.
Brave of you, really.
It has to be said that HYUFD's record is very good. He got Johnson right from a very early date and suffered similar ridicule. He was a lone voice and got it spot on. He was a shoo-in for predictor of the year. It would be a shame if he blew it on Trump 2020*
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
Roger a blind man could have forecast that any donkey could have beaten Corbyn.
....and one did. His reputation came from much earlier than that. It seems odd now but no one thought Johnson had a chance of becoming Tory leader when May resigned. Lying cheating lazy adulterers who couldn't count their children or remember the names of their mothers were not though to be Tory leadership material at that time. HYUFD was convinced they were
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
He was personally completely anti-slavery. But, like all the moderate Republicans, he believed that attempting to simply abolish slavery would lead to a civil war which might well destroy the country. And the South might win... What he (and others) believed was that
He was, as you say, a pragmatist. More importantly, he strongly believed in moving the public with him. At the time of his death he was pushing the debate on voting rights for freed slaves - it got him killed.
The film shows the political battle over the amendment as much more dramatic than it was - in reality, every Repoublican was solid with the amendment. It was what their party had been for. I thought the film showed him as a moral giant - pushing forward his great gaol, carefully building a coalition and protecting it to get the job done. I suppose utterly uncompromising failure is more heroic to some people....
Its half term here on Teesside and I for one am glad that my family gets a fire break from going to school. Mrs RP and the boy are off for a week and a half, the girl for a week. With the pox running rampant through our schools a period away feels very much like a Good Thing. A week of staying in and not doing a lot beckons.
"It seems odd now but no one thought Johnson had a chance of becoming Tory leader when May resigned." Really? I think you've been mislead by an idealized vision of the Conservative Party.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
A bit unfair to Lincoln I feel: after all, abolishing slavery is a pretty big step. The US civil war, like all wars, has multiple reasons given for its cause by multiple people, but Lincoln’s election was the spark that set it off due to his attitude towards slavery.
I remember reading several volumes of Page Smith's History of the US. He made the good point that it would be very comforting to think that right-thinking people all lined up on one side of the argument, throughout history, and wrong-thinking people lined up on the other, but it's never like that. He pointed out that some abolitionists had really horrible opinions about the lower classes, or American Indians. That doesn't make them wrong about abolition, however.
Sherman’s career after the US Civil War is a good example I think.
He confused Donald Trump for Abraham Lincoln in the prsidential debate last week. He does show very early signs of cognitive decline. This is a Trump vs Harris election.
I listened to the Lincoln thing a couple of time. “Abraham Lincoln over here” sounded like deliberate sarcasm to me.
Of course it was. It was a reference to Trump's claim to have done more for blacks than any President ever, with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln.
A bad parallel, because Abraham Lincoln was actually very racist. He wanted slavery abolished but he would have been perfectly happy with Jim Crow (and said publicly that was what he was aiming for, although not by that name). Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson all did far more for African Americans than he did.
Lincoln's thinking evolved rapidly over the Civil war years but I think in reality he said what he thought could be sold to a majority at any point in time. I remember my wife being very disappointed with Daniel Day-Lewis's Lincoln a few years ago because she had always had this image of Lincoln as the great moral giant. In fact I thought it was a brilliant performance showing Lincoln as an astonishingly skilled and complex politician who held together a remarkably disparate coalition against considerable odds and many, many military set backs.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
He was personally completely anti-slavery. But, like all the moderate Republicans, he believed that attempting to simply abolish slavery would lead to a civil war which might well destroy the country. And the South might win... What he (and others) believed was that
He was, as you say, a pragmatist. More importantly, he strongly believed in moving the public with him. At the time of his death he was pushing the debate on voting rights for freed slaves - it got him killed.
The film shows the political battle over the amendment as much more dramatic than it was - in reality, every Repoublican was solid with the amendment. It was what their party had been for. I thought the film showed him as a moral giant - pushing forward his great gaol, carefully building a coalition and protecting it to get the job done. I suppose utterly uncompromising failure is more heroic to some people....
Don't get me wrong, he was almost certainly America's greatest President, only FDR runs him close. Trump comparing himself to him in any capacity was well deserving of mockery.
In other news, I changed my first light switch yesterday. I feel like a proper adult at the grand old age of 28 years.
Cor. I've never done that and doubt if I ever will. If I do, it'll probably be the last thing I do...
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Try hard not to make it a shocking experience.
You joke though I did shock myself once changing a switch. Was living in a flat and it had multiple circuit breaker panels, turned out I'd isolated the wrong one. Touched the cables together and I jumped backwards at the shock, burnt my fingers for days afterwards.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
Yes. We are at least lucky we have earthed plugs and appliances, unlike the rest of the world.
I have just finished installing and wiring together four fluorescent lights and a switch in my cellar, but the electrician is coming tomorrow to cut them into the mains circuit, just to be safe.
It does seem a classic example of getting caught red handed. Accidentally release something you didn't want others to see. Defend it (optional) Delete the evidence Claim you got hacked or fake news
Here he is defending the polls just in case there was any doubt
HYUFD's relentless promotion of Trafalgar has been quite useful. I used to think they were something of an outlier with an innovative methodology that might have something in it. Thanks to the attention paid to them on here I now think they are just a dodgy Republican party outfit. Sure Trump will quote them when he tries to stop postal votes being counted if he's ahead on the night - that's maybe the whole point of the operation.
Comments
Texas was a brilliant tip by Mike and I got on it. I think it's a lot tighter than Florida but it was certainly worth the 3/1 I took.
You're a jerk Malcolm with occasional flashes of genuine humour that are becoming rarer than a hen's tooth. Everyone on here knows it.
Personally I have no idea, but several on here have provided worrying data that they haven't.
If you think they have how do you answer those questions?
If you think they haven't do you think they and you should be publishing fictious poll numbers?.
GOP 2,182,949 (261,954 Dem / 1,899,165 GOP
DEM 2,536,612 (2,511,246 Dem votes / 25,366 GOP )
IND 1,247,892 (698,819 Dem votes / 499,156 GOP )
Biden 3,473,019 ( 58.2% )
Trump 2,423,687 ( 40.6%)
And a million vote Biden lead right now.
*Though a great relief for humanity obviously
I will try the same anology I used before. If I throw a dice the odds on any number coming up is less than Nate Silver's predictions of Trump winning in 2016. By your logic that means if you throw a dice no number will come up. Isn't it clear how silly that is?
He was a Bozo fanboy, in the same way that he is a Trump fanboy. Fandom isn't analysis, even when your team wins.
Florida has closed primaries - so there's a strongish incentive to register with one or other of the parties.
read://https_www.msn.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.msn.com%2Fen-us%2Fnews%2Felections-2020%2Fpennsylvania-michigan-and-wisconsin-still-hold-the-keys-to-2020%2Far-BB1amjAQ
As the article says everything else is gravy.
His speciality is narcissistic shits
That doesn’t mean Trump wont win but it’s not exactly convincing.
PS: I note that you avoid answering the fact that you accuse someone of ramping and then blatantly ramp yourself.
Anyway, we'll probably be able to tell soon if it's trash as EV progresses this week.
The fact that it is strongly suggests he is in trouble. On the data so ably marshalled by Mr Smithson Jr looks like a fair number of floating/Dem inclined voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton are turning out to make sure they boot out Trump this time.
He still has time to turn it around if he can mobilise his base effectively in the right states, but it’s looking a narrow and tricky path and he’s clearly flung on the defensive.
Edit - and somewhere in the shades, Morris Dancer’s book from 2016 is weeping quietly at being four years too early.
By the way, what do you make of the CalMac scandal that’s been breaking over the last couple of days?
In Tralalgar world Trump seems to lead them all by 3. Amazing really. Is that what we call “convergence”?
That's also a reason why we can think that they will be better predictions this time - which is, after all, what we care about. What confidence have we in Trafalgar? Well, they could make another lucky guess, but they're no more likely to this time just because they were right last time.
But I am still tempted to claim that abolishing slavery gives him the Top Trump!
I mean he could be right but I don't see much evidence.
Critics at the time pointed out the Emancipation Proclamation, even if it was legal, only freed slaves in areas held by the Confedaracy. In other words, only slaves Lincoln had no power to free.
This article is quite interesting on the subject, although it confirms your view about his complexity.
https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation
And I'm quite sure Biden was being srcastic.
How's Mrs M doing? Still progressing, I hope.
These people are unlikely to think much of other Republican politicians or the Republican Party in general.
I feel I'm being intrepid when I change a light bulb.
Truman, I would suggest, Is a better example. As a southerner who had always quite cheerfully accepted Jim Crow while intellectually believing all people were equal but different, as president he was shown what the reality of it was. ‘My God,’ he said, ‘I never knew it was that bad. We gotta do something.’
And at risk of his presidency, he desegregated the armed forces and brought in fair hiring practices. Admittedly, progress was uneven but it was definitely a start.
I have to say that I hate online-only teaching.
If Biden and the Dem do make a clean sweep I sincerely hope they change the stupid electoral system and ensure future votes are based on a simple natioonal majority, after all it is supposed to be a "United" and democratic country.
One of the great unknowns is whether Roosevelt would have used the A bomb. I think personally he would have done, but only after speaking to Stalin and Attlee and getting their express approval.
His actual assassin, quite specifically, said that listening to the speech in question was what convinced him to turn the original kidnapping plot into murder*.
*Actually multiple murders. An attempt to decapitate the Federal Government.
Make damn sure you've fully isolated the power is my advice before doing something like that. Easy enough in a home with only one panel, in a flat its not always so obvious . . .
It's an uncharacteristic forcing of history on @ydoethur 's part to say that Lincoln would "have been very happy with Jim Crow". Thanks to his untimely death, we have very little idea what Lincoln, post Civil War, might or might not have been very happy with.
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
H Belloc.
Meanwhile I am teaching lessons at school and as I project the notes I make in the lesson I have been uploading them as well at the end of the lesson. I try not to use pre-prepared notes in lessons any more as copying out walls of text is the most deadly form of teaching. Instead I write the notes as we go, with input from the students, and at a slow enough pace that I don’t usually have to wait for anyone. In fact as they know they will get the notes I often tell them to only write what they think they will need, though that doesn’t work well for the younger ones.
He was, as you say, a pragmatist. More importantly, he strongly believed in moving the public with him. At the time of his death he was pushing the debate on voting rights for freed slaves - it got him killed.
The film shows the political battle over the amendment as much more dramatic than it was - in reality, every Repoublican was solid with the amendment. It was what their party had been for. I thought the film showed him as a moral giant - pushing forward his great gaol, carefully building a coalition and protecting it to get the job done. I suppose utterly uncompromising failure is more heroic to some people....
Really? I think you've been mislead by an idealized vision of the Conservative Party.
I have just finished installing and wiring together four fluorescent lights and a switch in my cellar, but the electrician is coming tomorrow to cut them into the mains circuit, just to be safe.