Leading scientists have called for an urgent change in control of the UK’s struggling test and trace system warning it will fail to prevent a third wave of infection unless it is taken over by the NHS.
Independent Sage, a group of scientists set up to scrutinise the government’s coronavirus response, said the £12bn system should be removed from the control of Dido Harding and the private companies Deloitte and Serco. They want laboratories to be taken over by the NHS and tracing to be run by local directors of public health with the money currently going into private contracts redirected.
So a failing private sector effort can be taken over by an almost certain to fail public sector organisation? Sage (made up of a lot of public sector and academia types) seems to have forgotten "The Spreadsheet"! The public sector rarely does this stuff well.
The problem can clearly be seen at the top. Dido Harding, a crony of Bozo The Clown, though in the real world someone who is treated with derision by the IT and telecom sector from whence she came for losing TalkTalk £60M and 95000 customers. They need to put a serious person in charge and make sure they get value out of what has already happened and what Deloitte and Serco are contracted to do.
Part of the problem with the testing system is that it's doing the wrong things.
We should have locally run test processing centres and local councils should have 30-40 three person groups each in full hazmat gear armed with swabs knocking on doors of contacts taking them for daily processing so those contacts get their results the next day. They should also have another 30-40 two person teams doing daily door knocks of everyone who is supposed to be isolating in their local authority and they should be working 8am-10pm shift patterns with the power to fine people up to £10k for not being present on demand and allowing the LA to keep a portion of the fines.
Camden, for example, has got around 600 active infections at the moment, it needs 20 teams working simultaneously in a two shift pattern to enable the council to knock on all of the relevant doors and check that people are isolating everyday.
The cost of running a system like this would be around £500m per month plus a lot of initial investment in training and local testing capacity but once it's in place the ongoing cost is £500m per month with our current infection rate and much less after a month or so as the infection rate drops.
The government keeping central control is the issue and having clueless chumps like Dido running things is exacerbating all of the problems.
Is there any evidence that the virus is being transmitted primarily by people who have already tested positive and not by people who had not yet been tested?
If the overwhelming majority of transmission is asymptomatic, presymptomatic or pre-test results then even perfect follow ups on those known to be positive won't have a major effect on transmission.
Yes, the spread is linked to both, pre-symptomatic people are infectious for 2.5 days of their 5 day incubation period, the average R of these people is pretty variable, 1 in 9 of these people isolate if the are told to do so by a track and trace team and it is thought we reach around 60% of contacts.
Asymptomatic people have got a base R of 1.7 which goes down to below 1 with the basic good hygiene and social distancing. It's not a huge concern.
Symptomatic people have a base R of 4.5 (though it's actually loads of people who infect no one and a small number who infect a very large number), with NPIs that comes down to just below 2, with full lockdown that comes down again to just below 1. The reason it doesn't drop to zero is that 4 in 5 people who test positive don't isolate for the full 14-21 day period it takes for them to stop being infectious, the main reasons for this are lack of access to food deliveries, fear of losing their job, unable to afford 2 weeks off unpaid, not believing they have caught it.
A system which uses door knocking is highly effective in taking swabs of contacts and local processing means very low test processing lag and next day results meaning one evening of isolation for people who test negative and then daily door knocks for those who test positive and following the same routine for their contacts and breaking the chain.
There's other things that need to be done (better incentive to isolate, priority supermarket deliveries, legislation to prevent people being sacked for having to isolate) and it's less secure and much more expensive than GPS tagging, but ultimately it's a system that would work to bring cases down fairly quickly that wouldn't require tagging.
The "useful intelligence" line is VERY similar to the "theory" that Christine Keeler was passing on to the Soviets classified info re: nuke throw-weights and the like garnered via her pillow talk with John Profumo.
If anyone is interested Nasa have found water on the Moon. Which once again makes science fiction merely science fact that hasn't happened yet. Want a moon base to refuel deep space missions from? Build it next to the water ice.
I'm enormously interested. Please share the link.
Escaping the Earth is, in my view, the single biggest and most important thing we can do. Not by any means at any cost, and part of why I feel it's important is just to get us out of the way of all the other species here.
When, I think tomorrow (after this post), I get elected PM I'll stick 10% or so of the budget into space.
The above may have an element of getting carried-away-with-oneself.
Escape where to? So far we have boldly gone 1.3 light seconds, 20 light hours if you count unmanned. We know for certain that there is nowhere in the solar system which is not hundreds of times less habitable than the least habitable place on earth, and it is a high probability that there is nowhere within the surrounding 100 light years. And I accept your "other species" principle, but the population of Western Europe did not drop sharply because we "discovered" the New World, Australia etc.
Well yes you make it entirely clear why we need to work at this now. It's no grand plan, it's a chipping away at the cell.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
So?
He was talking about the 'massive difference on national polling', yet one of the most accurate national pollsters in 2016 is showing a small swing to Trump now
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Agreed, but it was also because her name was Clinton, which did not help her except with her base. I once made the mistake of discussing the 2016 election with a very pleasant educated American whom I was surprised to hear was supporting Trump. He said, that yes, it is difficult for someone across the pond to imagine voting for Trump, but America really had had enough of the Clintons. He turned out to be correct, well from an electoral college perspective at least.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
That was +27 for the GOP candidate in the Congressional race in 2016 and +10 in 2018.
It is in the Dallas suburbs (not classic white working class Trump territory) and I would expect Trump to now win Texas by less than 5% having won it by 9% in 2016 which was itself smaller than the 16% Romney won Texas by in 2012.
Texas does not much like Trump in contrast to the rustbelt, however he will still likely scrape home in the Lone Star State because of the partisan GOP vote there
The partisan GOP vote that this poll suggests has very quickly evaporated?
Indeed but Trump still has a 3% average lead in Texas overall, that would be the smallest lead for the GOP candidate in Texas since 1992 but Trump would still win it nonetheless
This year Trump's vote looks remarkably efficient, he will be trounced in New York and California, will scrape home in Texas and is neck and neck in Florida and those are the 4 most populous states in the US by far, however he is also still competitive in the rustbelt swing states as well.
It is therefore possible he could lose the national popular vote by 3-4% and still scrape home in the EC
OTOH if he narrowly loses Texas and Florida the EC bias is gone and possibly flips the other way.
No that's not right.
If the Democrats win Texas and Florida while losing the popular vote (or neutral on PV) then the EC bias is gone and possibly flips the other way.
If the Democrats only narrowly take those because they're winning the popular vote by 8% then the EC bias is still there.
The issue for the Republicans though is that Texas is trending purple and within a decade it could theoretically go to the Democrats on a neutral popular vote.
But then that 8 pt win in the PV would be delivering close to 400 in the EC. So a not quite PV landslide giving an EC landslide. Bias flipped.
Remember that the Reps rack up huge PV margins in all those sparsely populated rural states. In aggregate that's a California and then some.
No I don't think you're understanding what the bias means.
Larger leads (and 8% is pretty large) can of course lead to landslides that should not be a shock but the bias represents who wins if there is no lead at all or just a small one. The bias is only flipped if a Democrat can be in the oval office despite the Republicans winning by a small margin the popular vote. If Texas tips before the popular vote does its possible, but we're not there yet.
That's the same thing but just applied to a different hypothetical. How does the PV margin translate to the EC margin? - this is the general "bias" question.
No margin is irrelevant. You are thinking in two British a thinking where size of the Parliamentary majority matters, in the USA it makes no difference if you win by 2 ECVs or 200, a win is a win is a win.
Bias is who wins the Electoral College and how does that filter through to a tipping point. If the tipping point is that the GOP wins with fewer votes than the Democrats then it is biased to the GOP. For the bias to tip then the tipping point would need to be the other side.
But it does make a difference because it gives you more paths to the line for a particular PV margin (or no margin). You're not wrong except in saying that I'm wrong. Your "bias" is one specific resolution of my "bias". You are Newton to my Einstein here. As it were.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Sexism, of the 'wouldn't it be great to have the first woman president at last?' type, also helped her. Not obvious at all whether the net effect was positive or negative.
I go for the simpler explanation that she was a really awful candidate. She might have been quite a good president, though (and of course a zillion times better than the one they got).
Her presentational abilities within the role of President would have been a million times better. Given her hawkishness though, her actions could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in various world trouble spots.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
And covid health and economic crisis. And the Democrats not having an unpopular candidate. And Trump having to run on a track record rather than vague ideas and promises.
Otherwise very similar.
This,,,,,, Trump having his non social distancing, 'no such thing as Covid' rallies for the faithful is no indicator at all of this heading for a repeat of 2016. He knows he's behind. As I posted earlier, the kool aiders will flock to these no matter what, its baked in. IF and its a big if but if Trump wins it will be due to voters who you won't see at these rallies.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
So?
He was talking about the 'massive difference on national polling', yet one of the most accurate national pollsters in 2016 is showing a small swing to Trump now
That London video - genuinely crazy to see the West End that dead on a Tuesday.
I was in London hot spots (Camden, Chinatown) on Friday. Much quieter than usual, not dead but not living. The Chinese restaurant I went to was pondering closing down. Oxford Street subdued. Was my taxi's first trip of the day (was midday) and my Uber's third (4pm).
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
And what part did it play in her rise?
And was sexism a factor when Tories gave Ted Heath the old heave-ho?
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Sexism, of the 'wouldn't it be great to have the first woman president at last?' type, also helped her. Not obvious at all whether the net effect was positive or negative.
I go for the simpler explanation that she was a really awful candidate. She might have been quite a good president, though (and of course a zillion times better than the one they got).
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
No that's a nonsense, it was a crass and self-indulgent post.
There is a world of difference between saying "as President I will [popular policies here]" to attract votes from people who want those actions taken versus appearing self-absorbed in your own vanity which is what both Hillary and Trump do.
I haven't seen Biden congratulate himself or post anything as cringeworthy as that Tweet from Hillary and if he did it would be lambasted.
It was doing 2 things -
(i) The bog standard thing of projecting confidence. This, mixed with a No Complacency message, is the template in the home straight in US elections.
(ii) She was running to break the glass ceiling. First female President. Thus the photo of herself as a young girl, daring to dream.
Your reaction is a "tell" on you not on her.
I) There was no "no complacency" message there whatsoever. It was self-indulgent and conceited. As someone who wanted her to win and Trump to lose her acting that way was irritating as it was counterproductive. Had she been running on a No Complacency message I would have respected that but she didn't - and complacency is what led to her downfall.
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
That London video - genuinely crazy to see the West End that dead on a Tuesday.
I was in London hot spots (Camden, Chinatown) on Friday. Much quieter than usual, not dead but not living. The Chinese restaurant I went to was pondering closing down. Oxford Street subdued. Was my taxi's first trip of the day (was midday) and my Uber's third (4pm).
All adds up to a bunch of economic slowdown.
The taxis will eventually be raking it in if the govts £15 a day congestion charge to the north and south circular does happen.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
That London video - genuinely crazy to see the West End that dead on a Tuesday.
I was in London hot spots (Camden, Chinatown) on Friday. Much quieter than usual, not dead but not living. The Chinese restaurant I went to was pondering closing down. Oxford Street subdued. Was my taxi's first trip of the day (was midday) and my Uber's third (4pm).
All adds up to a bunch of economic slowdown.
The taxis will eventually be raking it in if the govts £15 a day congestion charge to the north and south circular does happen.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Agreed, but it was also because her name was Clinton, which did not help her except with her base. I once made the mistake of discussing the 2016 election with a very pleasant educated American whom I was surprised to hear was supporting Trump. He said, that yes, it is difficult for someone across the pond to imagine voting for Trump, but America really had had enough of the Clintons. He turned out to be correct, well from an electoral college perspective at least.
Yes there was Clinton entitlement. I'm not saying it was ALL about sexism - that would be a ridiculous claim. Just that it was a significant factor.
Example - SHE got more flak for his philandering than Bill did. Go figure.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
And what part did it play in her rise?
And was sexism a factor when Tories gave Ted Heath the old heave-ho?
In a way, yes. Many Tory MPs were convinced to vote for her on the basis that she couldn't win.
Dobbs lashed out at the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman for “not subpoenaing the left-wing heads of the censorships Twitter and Facebook until after the election.”
“I don’t know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham. It’s just outrageous,” Dobbs said. “This is the guy who keeps saying, ‘Stay tuned.’ He said he would get to the bottom of Obamagate with the Judiciary Committee, which has been a year and a half, actually longer, of absolute inert response to these pressing issues of our day.”...
I remember Lou Dobbs from his days as a rather sober business journo at CNN. He might be the one man in the USA with less integrity than Lindsey Graham.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
This site would be better if posters who tried to get other pollsters banned for posting a contrary view that does not confirm to their pre determined view of who will win the US election despite being based on some of the pollsters who were most accurate in the previous election shut up and focused on debate not banning.
Last time I checked this site was called Politicalbetting.com, not Biden's UK campaign HQ, despite the efforts of some like you!!
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
I think continually quoting bogus pollsters is worse.
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
It's changing your vote purely because of her sex. That's the definition of sexism in an election. All you are saying is that it's a kind of sexism you approve of.
As for the nasty memes, they were gender-blind. Plenty of nasty memes from Trump against his male opponents in the 2016 primaries, and against Biden and his male colleagues today.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
I won't as they have only really been proved to work when Trump is on the ballot in the rustbelt, in 2024 Trump will not be able to run again even if re elected
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Sexism, of the 'wouldn't it be great to have the first woman president at last?' type, also helped her. Not obvious at all whether the net effect was positive or negative.
I go for the simpler explanation that she was a really awful candidate. She might have been quite a good president, though (and of course a zillion times better than the one they got).
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
What exactly do you call favouring a candidate because of their given genitals?
If anyone is interested Nasa have found water on the Moon. Which once again makes science fiction merely science fact that hasn't happened yet. Want a moon base to refuel deep space missions from? Build it next to the water ice.
I'm enormously interested. Please share the link.
Escaping the Earth is, in my view, the single biggest and most important thing we can do. Not by any means at any cost, and part of why I feel it's important is just to get us out of the way of all the other species here.
When, I think tomorrow (after this post), I get elected PM I'll stick 10% or so of the budget into space.
The above may have an element of getting carried-away-with-oneself.
Escape where to? So far we have boldly gone 1.3 light seconds, 20 light hours if you count unmanned. We know for certain that there is nowhere in the solar system which is not hundreds of times less habitable than the least habitable place on earth, and it is a high probability that there is nowhere within the surrounding 100 light years. And I accept your "other species" principle, but the population of Western Europe did not drop sharply because we "discovered" the New World, Australia etc.
Well yes you make it entirely clear why we need to work at this now. It's no grand plan, it's a chipping away at the cell.
Enthusiasm is good, but I fear you are like someone setting out to demolish the Giza pyramids single-handed ( and no power tools). Yes, the sooner you start the sooner you'll be finished and everybody hates a defeatist, but...
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Sexism, of the 'wouldn't it be great to have the first woman president at last?' type, also helped her. Not obvious at all whether the net effect was positive or negative.
I go for the simpler explanation that she was a really awful candidate. She might have been quite a good president, though (and of course a zillion times better than the one they got).
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
What exactly do you call favouring a candidate because of their given genitals?
And would a man who has transgendered to a woman count?
When Trump has been defeated, hopefully heavily, the Republican party are going to need to have a think about what they are about and how they build a coalition of voters to win once again. I personally do not believe that Graham would be a useful contributor to that conversation but I suspect that he will hang on.
The QAnonites/Trumpers are here to stay. I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence that the GOP have the intellectual and moral courage to dispense with the most reliable part of their base.
I agree they are here to stay, but not necessarily within the GOP. After the coming shellacking, many House and Senate GOP hopefuls around the country will realize that the Trump 'alliance' is insufficient to win in their districts, and so will have to try to cobble together a different coalition to win. I don't see how they can do this while retaining the true QAnon core within the party.
Is QAnon a direct descendant of the Tea Party? My understanding of the latter is that they shrivelled away due to the mainstream GOP adopting quite a few of their positions. Insofar as QAnon has a coherent position on many areas, is that a possibility?
They shrivelled away due to the president being a white man again (albeit a bit orangey).
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
This site would be better if posters who tried to get other pollsters banned for posting a contrary view that does not confirm to their pre determined view of who will win the US election despite being based on some of the pollsters who were most accurate in the previous election shut up and focused on debate not banning.
Last time I checked this site was called Politicalbetting.com, not Biden's UK campaign HQ, despite the efforts of some like you!!
So don't post made up stuff, which you pass off as scientific opinion polling.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
No that's a nonsense, it was a crass and self-indulgent post.
There is a world of difference between saying "as President I will [popular policies here]" to attract votes from people who want those actions taken versus appearing self-absorbed in your own vanity which is what both Hillary and Trump do.
I haven't seen Biden congratulate himself or post anything as cringeworthy as that Tweet from Hillary and if he did it would be lambasted.
It was doing 2 things -
(i) The bog standard thing of projecting confidence. This, mixed with a No Complacency message, is the template in the home straight in US elections.
(ii) She was running to break the glass ceiling. First female President. Thus the photo of herself as a young girl, daring to dream.
Your reaction is a "tell" on you not on her.
I) There was no "no complacency" message there whatsoever. It was self-indulgent and conceited. As someone who wanted her to win and Trump to lose her acting that way was irritating as it was counterproductive. Had she been running on a No Complacency message I would have respected that but she didn't - and complacency is what led to her downfall.
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
My relatives in New York - Democrats since before FDR - were not impressed with the pitch that she was the plucky under dog.
Playing that line from the position of US Senator with a mountain of money in the bank did not come across well. Her enthusiastic chasing of the rich, while blowing off meetings with teaching unions etc didn't go down well either. Sure, you have to raise money, but actively giving the finger to big groups in the party is not the way to unity or success.
The contrast with Biden is interesting - he has worked a steady schedule of the groups that make up the Democratic party.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Not really necessary. If Trump gets the expected hammering those posters who have been pedaling the spurious polls will be too embarrassed to show their faces again anyway.
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
This site would be better if posters who tried to get other pollsters banned for posting a contrary view that does not confirm to their pre determined view of who will win the US election despite being based on some of the pollsters who were most accurate in the previous election shut up and focused on debate not banning.
Last time I checked this site was called Politicalbetting.com, not Biden's UK campaign HQ, despite the efforts of some like you!!
So don't post made up stuff, which you pass off as scientific opinion polling.
You have no evidence it is made up other than your view Biden is certain to win and dismissal of any evidence to the contrary
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Not really necessary. If Trump gets the expected hammering those posters who have been pedaling the spurious polls will be too embarrassed to show their faces again anyway.
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
It's changing your vote purely because of her sex. That's the definition of sexism in an election. All you are saying is that it's a kind of sexism you approve of.
As for the nasty memes, they were gender-blind. Plenty of nasty memes from Trump against his male opponents in the 2016 primaries, and against Biden and his male colleagues today.
That is like equating the wave of enthusiasm for Obama in 08 as potentially the 1st black president with the cops killing George Floyd - because they are BOTH racism.
The many misogynistic memes against Hillary Clinton were by definition NOT gender blind. That Donald Trump is well capable of being grossly offensive to anybody is a wholly accurate but wholly irrelevant observation.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
You should be able to post what you like to, others should be free to criticise and rebut it. Once its clear that minds are not going to be changed, as it is in this case, then not sure the daily debates about how relevant the pollsters track record in the last election vs the pollsters underlying methodology and competence add anything new imo.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Not really necessary. If Trump gets the expected hammering those posters who have been pedaling the spurious polls will be too embarrassed to show their faces again anyway.
Even if Biden wins the biggest landslide in US history I will still post, you cannot get everything right and I did pretty well on Boris and GE19
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
You should be able to post what you like to, others should be free to criticise and rebut it. Once its clear that minds are not going to be changed, as it is in this case, then not sure the daily debates about how relevant the pollsters track record in the last election vs the pollsters underlying methodology and competence don't add anything new imo.
I don't disagree in which case if you believe the polls in question are rubbish just ignore them until we found out if they were or not on election night
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
This site would be better if the obvious falsehood of applying a pollster’s error from one election simplistically and mathematically to their polls for the next, became a banning offence.
Not really necessary. If Trump gets the expected hammering those posters who have been pedaling the spurious polls will be too embarrassed to show their faces again anyway.
Nope - they will simply announce they have adjusted their methodology and start selling to the next set of.... buyers? marks?
That was +27 for the GOP candidate in the Congressional race in 2016 and +10 in 2018.
It is in the Dallas suburbs (not classic white working class Trump territory) and I would expect Trump to now win Texas by less than 5% having won it by 9% in 2016 which was itself smaller than the 16% Romney won Texas by in 2012.
Texas does not much like Trump in contrast to the rustbelt, however he will still likely scrape home in the Lone Star State because of the partisan GOP vote there
The partisan GOP vote that this poll suggests has very quickly evaporated?
Indeed but Trump still has a 3% average lead in Texas overall, that would be the smallest lead for the GOP candidate in Texas since 1992 but Trump would still win it nonetheless
This year Trump's vote looks remarkably efficient, he will be trounced in New York and California, will scrape home in Texas and is neck and neck in Florida and those are the 4 most populous states in the US by far, however he is also still competitive in the rustbelt swing states as well.
It is therefore possible he could lose the national popular vote by 3-4% and still scrape home in the EC
OTOH if he narrowly loses Texas and Florida the EC bias is gone and possibly flips the other way.
No that's not right.
If the Democrats win Texas and Florida while losing the popular vote (or neutral on PV) then the EC bias is gone and possibly flips the other way.
If the Democrats only narrowly take those because they're winning the popular vote by 8% then the EC bias is still there.
The issue for the Republicans though is that Texas is trending purple and within a decade it could theoretically go to the Democrats on a neutral popular vote.
But then that 8 pt win in the PV would be delivering close to 400 in the EC. So a not quite PV landslide giving an EC landslide. Bias flipped.
Remember that the Reps rack up huge PV margins in all those sparsely populated rural states. In aggregate that's a California and then some.
No I don't think you're understanding what the bias means.
Larger leads (and 8% is pretty large) can of course lead to landslides that should not be a shock but the bias represents who wins if there is no lead at all or just a small one. The bias is only flipped if a Democrat can be in the oval office despite the Republicans winning by a small margin the popular vote. If Texas tips before the popular vote does its possible, but we're not there yet.
That's the same thing but just applied to a different hypothetical. How does the PV margin translate to the EC margin? - this is the general "bias" question.
No margin is irrelevant. You are thinking in two British a thinking where size of the Parliamentary majority matters, in the USA it makes no difference if you win by 2 ECVs or 200, a win is a win is a win.
Bias is who wins the Electoral College and how does that filter through to a tipping point. If the tipping point is that the GOP wins with fewer votes than the Democrats then it is biased to the GOP. For the bias to tip then the tipping point would need to be the other side.
But it does make a difference because it gives you more paths to the line for a particular PV margin (or no margin). You're not wrong except in saying that I'm wrong. Your "bias" is one specific resolution of my "bias". You are Newton to my Einstein here. As it were.
It doesn't give you any more paths to victory if you only win states after you have already won a majority anyway. In order to give more paths to victory then you need to win those states as part of your 270.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
I won't as they have only really been proved to work when Trump is on the ballot in the rustbelt, in 2024 Trump will not be able to run again even if re elected
But you will.
If Don Jnr. or Ivanka are claimed to be 2 points ahead of Kamala Harris or Mayor Pete by "Trafalgar" in 2024, you will refer back to their (his) faultless record in both 2016 and 2020.
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
It's changing your vote purely because of her sex. That's the definition of sexism in an election. All you are saying is that it's a kind of sexism you approve of.
As for the nasty memes, they were gender-blind. Plenty of nasty memes from Trump against his male opponents in the 2016 primaries, and against Biden and his male colleagues today.
That is like equating the wave of enthusiasm for Obama in 08 as potentially the 1st black president with the cops killing George Floyd - because they are BOTH racism.
The many misogynistic memes against Hillary Clinton were by definition NOT gender blind. That Donald Trump is well capable of being grossly offensive to anybody is a wholly accurate but wholly irrelevant observation.
We were discussing whether 'sexism' helped or hindered her. Yes, you are right, exactly the same arguments apply to the extent to which Obama was helped or hindered by his race. You want to bank one half of the equation and give it a special name, and deny the other half. That really isn't a good idea if you want to understand what's going on.
Not quite sure what on earth the cops killing George Floyd has to do with it. We were talking factors influencing how people voted.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
You should be able to post what you like to, others should be free to criticise and rebut it. Once its clear that minds are not going to be changed, as it is in this case, then not sure the daily debates about how relevant the pollsters track record in the last election vs the pollsters underlying methodology and competence don't add anything new imo.
I don't disagree in which case if you believe the polls in question are rubbish just ignore them until we found out if they were or not on election night
Yes that is what I shall do. Its fine for others to point out the pollsters in question methodology is suspect just as it is for you to post them and their accuracy last time. They are not going to convince you that you are wrong, and you are not going to convince them you are right.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Agree. As I posted recently there appear to be certain topics here that are beyond the pail. Including citing sources that say Trump might win.
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
Indeed.
I prefer dice roll analogies and I'd put Trump's odds now as being the same as needing to roll an 11+ on 2d6 (ie 8.33%)
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Agree. As I posted recently there appear to be certain topics here that are beyond the pail. Including citing sources that say Trump might win.
That isn't the argument in this instance. The debate is that HYUFD continually quotes a "pollster" who by any polling metric is not a pollster.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
No that's a nonsense, it was a crass and self-indulgent post.
There is a world of difference between saying "as President I will [popular policies here]" to attract votes from people who want those actions taken versus appearing self-absorbed in your own vanity which is what both Hillary and Trump do.
I haven't seen Biden congratulate himself or post anything as cringeworthy as that Tweet from Hillary and if he did it would be lambasted.
It was doing 2 things -
(i) The bog standard thing of projecting confidence. This, mixed with a No Complacency message, is the template in the home straight in US elections.
(ii) She was running to break the glass ceiling. First female President. Thus the photo of herself as a young girl, daring to dream.
Your reaction is a "tell" on you not on her.
I) There was no "no complacency" message there whatsoever. It was self-indulgent and conceited. As someone who wanted her to win and Trump to lose her acting that way was irritating as it was counterproductive. Had she been running on a No Complacency message I would have respected that but she didn't - and complacency is what led to her downfall.
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
You don't mix the "I'm gonna win!" with the "It's NOT in the bag" in the same single message obviously. C'mon. And Glass Ceiling was equally obviously what she was saying. Young girl. Dare to dream. Sorry, Philip, you're busted. Sexism has peeped out of your buttonhole. But I know you're not that way inclined. Just a minor slip. So if a progressive chap like you succumbs every now and again just think how prevalent it is and how big a factor in 2016 it probably was. See what I mean? Yep.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Agree. As I posted recently there appear to be certain topics here that are beyond the pail. Including citing sources that say Trump might win.
That isn't the argument in this instance. The debate is that HYUFD continually quotes a "pollster" who by any polling metric is not a pollster.
@rcs1000's findings/Telecon weren't conclusive were they?
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
I know its a "gut check" rather than particularly analytical but I really dont like this calculation.
2/10 is pretty meaningless - thats perfectly consistent with a chance of anywhere between 10-40%ish not just 20%.
How many were 4.5% away etc is also relevant.
There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year.
50/50 chance it favours Trump feels wrong as well, although that is more subjective and he might be right, but I would think if there is a 5% swing between now and the election Id be happy to back its to Trump at 1.75 and think it might be much shorter.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Agree. As I posted recently there appear to be certain topics here that are beyond the pail. Including citing sources that say Trump might win.
That isn't the argument in this instance. The debate is that HYUFD continually quotes a "pollster" who by any polling metric is not a pollster.
@rcs1000's findings/Telecon weren't conclusive were they?
@rcs1000 did a sound job of convincing me. There have been several articles quoted suggesting the "methodology" is, shall we say peculiar.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
No that's a nonsense, it was a crass and self-indulgent post.
There is a world of difference between saying "as President I will [popular policies here]" to attract votes from people who want those actions taken versus appearing self-absorbed in your own vanity which is what both Hillary and Trump do.
I haven't seen Biden congratulate himself or post anything as cringeworthy as that Tweet from Hillary and if he did it would be lambasted.
It was doing 2 things -
(i) The bog standard thing of projecting confidence. This, mixed with a No Complacency message, is the template in the home straight in US elections.
(ii) She was running to break the glass ceiling. First female President. Thus the photo of herself as a young girl, daring to dream.
Your reaction is a "tell" on you not on her.
I) There was no "no complacency" message there whatsoever. It was self-indulgent and conceited. As someone who wanted her to win and Trump to lose her acting that way was irritating as it was counterproductive. Had she been running on a No Complacency message I would have respected that but she didn't - and complacency is what led to her downfall.
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
You don't mix the "I'm gonna win!" with the "It's NOT in the bag" in the same single message obviously. C'mon. And Glass Ceiling was equally obviously what she was saying. Young girl. Dare to dream. Sorry, Philip, you're busted. Sexism has peeped out of your buttonhole. But I know you're not that way inclined. Just a minor slip. But if a progressive chap like you succumbs every now and again just think how prevalent it is and how big a factor in 2016 it probably was. See what I mean? Yep.
Sorry but that's just bullshit. If you're in the lead like she was there is no need to be making self-indulgent "I'm going to win" posts like that, if you think it's common then please find a Tweet by Biden or Obama that is comparable.
As for the glass ceiling line that's just pathetic. Obama shattered a glass ceiling as a young black man from Chicago - not a wealthy millionaire Washington insider who'd spent 8 years living in the White House already.
Any glass ceiling remarks following on from Obama are truly pathetic and meaningless.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
And what part did it play in her rise?
And was sexism a factor when Tories gave Ted Heath the old heave-ho?
She apparently enjoyed being a woman surrounded by men and was able to use it to her advantage in certain respects. But still, I would say it was a big net barrier.
No, I can't see any sexism angle in the Heath downfall. Intrigued. What are you thinking there? His unmarried and sexually ambivalent status?
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
I know its a "gut check" rather than particularly analytical but I really dont like this calculation.
2/10 is pretty meaningless - thats perfectly consistent with a chance of anywhere between 10-40%ish not just 20%.
How many were 4.5% away etc is also relevant.
There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year.
50/50 chance it favours Trump feels wrong as well, although that is more subjective and he might be right, but I would think if there is a 5% swing between now and the election Id be happy to back its to Trump at 1.75 and think it might be much shorter.
I'm not quite sure why you thing any polling error is likely to be in Trump's favour. I see no reason to suppose it's not equally likely to be in Biden's favour - for example, because his early-voting advantage means he'll end up getting more of his supporters actually casting their votes. Of course you can also find reasons that might mean it's in Trump's favour, but we really don't know.
Also, and more important, the volatility seems to be particularly low in this election. Biden's lead has been boringly steady for many weeks.
Except for the massive difference in the national polling, of course.
Rasmussen is Trump +1% today in its national poll, its final 2016 national poll was Clinton +2%
Why do you only quote polls and voodoo declarations favourable to Trump?
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
You seem far too pleasant to be a Trump supporter, so maybe you are hedging your disappointment if he wins with being able to say "I told you so" on here, or have you bet a small fortune on a Trump win?
I was merely critical of HYUFD'S constant ramping of Trump through spurious or bogus polling.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Sorry, comment was meant to be targeted at HYUFD. I am sure you seem pleasant too!
For the last time I am not a Trump supporter, I would have voted for Hillary and Biden (though not Sanders) but this site is supposed to be about predicting who we think will win not about driving out anybody with a contrary view, otherwise I am afraid to say this is no longer a betting site but effectively a campaign site for liberals
Agree. As I posted recently there appear to be certain topics here that are beyond the pail. Including citing sources that say Trump might win.
That isn't the argument in this instance. The debate is that HYUFD continually quotes a "pollster" who by any polling metric is not a pollster.
@rcs1000's findings/Telecon weren't conclusive were they?
There have been hilarious developments since then, with a batch of Oct 24th polls, the crosstabs of which were criticised as being absurdly unrealistic, which Mr C then withdrew and tried to claim were nothing to do with him anyway, and wasn't it funny that Nate et al had been tricked into using them.
His goose has been well and truly cooked.
Anyhow, I see Biden is on 86% for the first time that I've noticed in a long time on 538. Perhaps the Trump victory surge is on?
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
I continue to struggle to understand how pollsters are dealing with people who have already voted. Do they even ask the question 'Have you voted already?'
He is a good campaigner, that is why he won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher to deliver Brexit, that was why Boris won the Tory leadership not because he was a good administrator
He won his majority because he was not Jeremy Corbyn. He won the Tory leadership because the Tories had been taken over by the swivel eyed right and he decided to sell his soul to them in spite of not really sharing their views on anything. Initially the stars aligned for Boris Johnson. Now the gods are having their fun at his and our expense.
Unbelievable , I 100% agree with you , all the crap posted about how great he is is hogwash. Mediocre clown promoted well above his level of competence. Best you could say is he is lucky or more accurately he is so sly and sneaky he changes horses at the right time, a miracle he managed to come up against Corbyn , anyone else and he would have been toast.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
No that's a nonsense, it was a crass and self-indulgent post.
There is a world of difference between saying "as President I will [popular policies here]" to attract votes from people who want those actions taken versus appearing self-absorbed in your own vanity which is what both Hillary and Trump do.
I haven't seen Biden congratulate himself or post anything as cringeworthy as that Tweet from Hillary and if he did it would be lambasted.
It was doing 2 things -
(i) The bog standard thing of projecting confidence. This, mixed with a No Complacency message, is the template in the home straight in US elections.
(ii) She was running to break the glass ceiling. First female President. Thus the photo of herself as a young girl, daring to dream.
Your reaction is a "tell" on you not on her.
I) There was no "no complacency" message there whatsoever. It was self-indulgent and conceited. As someone who wanted her to win and Trump to lose her acting that way was irritating as it was counterproductive. Had she been running on a No Complacency message I would have respected that but she didn't - and complacency is what led to her downfall.
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
You don't mix the "I'm gonna win!" with the "It's NOT in the bag" in the same single message obviously. C'mon. And Glass Ceiling was equally obviously what she was saying. Young girl. Dare to dream. Sorry, Philip, you're busted. Sexism has peeped out of your buttonhole. But I know you're not that way inclined. Just a minor slip. But if a progressive chap like you succumbs every now and again just think how prevalent it is and how big a factor in 2016 it probably was. See what I mean? Yep.
Sorry but that's just bullshit. If you're in the lead like she was there is no need to be making self-indulgent "I'm going to win" posts like that, if you think it's common then please find a Tweet by Biden or Obama that is comparable.
As for the glass ceiling line that's just pathetic. Obama shattered a glass ceiling as a young black man from Chicago - not a wealthy millionaire Washington insider who'd spent 8 years living in the White House already.
Any glass ceiling remarks following on from Obama are truly pathetic and meaningless.
No point deflecting and obscuring. You're busted on this one.
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
It's changing your vote purely because of her sex. That's the definition of sexism in an election. All you are saying is that it's a kind of sexism you approve of.
As for the nasty memes, they were gender-blind. Plenty of nasty memes from Trump against his male opponents in the 2016 primaries, and against Biden and his male colleagues today.
That is like equating the wave of enthusiasm for Obama in 08 as potentially the 1st black president with the cops killing George Floyd - because they are BOTH racism.
The many misogynistic memes against Hillary Clinton were by definition NOT gender blind. That Donald Trump is well capable of being grossly offensive to anybody is a wholly accurate but wholly irrelevant observation.
We were discussing whether 'sexism' helped or hindered her. Yes, you are right, exactly the same arguments apply to the extent to which Obama was helped or hindered by his race. You want to bank one half of the equation and give it a special name, and deny the other half. That really isn't a good idea if you want to understand what's going on.
Not quite sure what on earth the cops killing George Floyd has to do with it. We were talking factors influencing how people voted.
I thought you were equating the truly nasty misogyny which HRC had to contend with in 2016 with the enthusiasm to see a woman president which benefited her. Calling them 2 sides of the same sexist coin.
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
I know its a "gut check" rather than particularly analytical but I really dont like this calculation.
2/10 is pretty meaningless - thats perfectly consistent with a chance of anywhere between 10-40%ish not just 20%.
How many were 4.5% away etc is also relevant.
There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year.
50/50 chance it favours Trump feels wrong as well, although that is more subjective and he might be right, but I would think if there is a 5% swing between now and the election Id be happy to back its to Trump at 1.75 and think it might be much shorter.
I'm not quite sure why you thing any polling error is likely to be in Trump's favour. I see no reason to suppose it's not equally likely to be in Biden's favour - for example, because his early-voting advantage means he'll end up getting more of his supporters actually casting their votes. Of course you can also find reasons that might mean it's in Trump's favour, but we really don't know.
Also, and more important, the volatility seems to be particularly low in this election. Biden's lead has been boringly steady for many weeks.
Fair point on the low volatility within the polling, that is certainly true - but the number of people voting including lots of infrequent voters, the pandemic, court rulings, possible corruption makes the volatility between the polling and the voting unusually big.
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
I know its a "gut check" rather than particularly analytical but I really dont like this calculation.
2/10 is pretty meaningless - thats perfectly consistent with a chance of anywhere between 10-40%ish not just 20%.
How many were 4.5% away etc is also relevant.
There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year.
50/50 chance it favours Trump feels wrong as well, although that is more subjective and he might be right, but I would think if there is a 5% swing between now and the election Id be happy to back its to Trump at 1.75 and think it might be much shorter.
"There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year." What?!
Take a look at RCP's 2020 average and then the 2016 one below it.
Was this really a good time for Hillary Clinton to say she was "born to be president"? Not sure it's helpful as far as the Democrat/Biden campaign is concerned.
I think the tweet was from 2016. Still crass, and taking the electorate for granted.
I don't think it was crass or taking the electorate for granted.
When you're running for President and on the home stretch you say "We're gonna do it!". You try to energize and project confidence. Everyone does this and you mix it with warnings about complacency. Which she also did. Totally bog standard candidate messaging.
Your post - and the comments from others in the same vein - illustrate the double standards that are applied by so many to Hillary Clinton.
It had something to do with her being a woman. That's not the whole answer but it explains most of it.
Misogyny is often dressed as other things, though it could simply have been that Hillary Clinton was no Margaret Thatcher, the latter who succeeded in much more openly prejudiced times. Remember how the left always tried to make out she was actually a man? Hillary has to have been pretty crap to lose to the Orange Moron.
Yes, Thatcher overcame massive sexism. No argument from me about that. And HRC was indeed a poor candidate. But it's undeniable - unless one cannot recognize sexism - that sexism played a big part in her defeat.
Hmm, not so sure about that. Sexism, of the 'wouldn't it be great to have the first woman president at last?' type, also helped her. Not obvious at all whether the net effect was positive or negative.
I go for the simpler explanation that she was a really awful candidate. She might have been quite a good president, though (and of course a zillion times better than the one they got).
A desire to see the first woman president is not sexism. That has no equivalence to all the "Lock Her Up" stuff. Plus millions of other nasty memes.
What exactly do you call favouring a candidate because of their given genitals?
I call a desire to see the 1st woman president wholly admirable.
If you are equating this to the sexism that holds women back, I cannot help you.
They appear to show a relatively subdued outbreak in the south (London, SE, E and SW regions) and a more worrying outbreak further north, with Wales and the W Mids. having intermediate figures.
He is a good campaigner, that is why he won the biggest Tory majority since Thatcher to deliver Brexit, that was why Boris won the Tory leadership not because he was a good administrator
Boris believes in delegation but that only works when those he delegate to are actually any good
It falls over with the likes of Grayling, Williamson, Hancock Jenrick and others
Actually, I think you have it wrong.
Bozo is happy to delegate to competent, intelligent officials, who owe their position to his appointing them and don’t have any independent power base of their own.
What Boris, given his inadequacy and lack of self confidence, will not risk is appointing competent fellow politicians who might one day become his rivals and topple him. Not least because he has spent his life working to undermine those above him, and knows how destructive it can be.
Simpler than that: Boris appointed all the prominent Brexiteers. LBJ's tent applies, as political cover is needed for whatever deal is struck (or not) by the end of the year.
Comments
Asymptomatic people have got a base R of 1.7 which goes down to below 1 with the basic good hygiene and social distancing. It's not a huge concern.
Symptomatic people have a base R of 4.5 (though it's actually loads of people who infect no one and a small number who infect a very large number), with NPIs that comes down to just below 2, with full lockdown that comes down again to just below 1. The reason it doesn't drop to zero is that 4 in 5 people who test positive don't isolate for the full 14-21 day period it takes for them to stop being infectious, the main reasons for this are lack of access to food deliveries, fear of losing their job, unable to afford 2 weeks off unpaid, not believing they have caught it.
A system which uses door knocking is highly effective in taking swabs of contacts and local processing means very low test processing lag and next day results meaning one evening of isolation for people who test negative and then daily door knocks for those who test positive and following the same routine for their contacts and breaking the chain.
There's other things that need to be done (better incentive to isolate, priority supermarket deliveries, legislation to prevent people being sacked for having to isolate) and it's less secure and much more expensive than GPS tagging, but ultimately it's a system that would work to bring cases down fairly quickly that wouldn't require tagging.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1320785655883042816?s=20
Your hitherto excellent reputation as a political soothsayer may remain intact with top marks come November 4th, but you will nonetheless lose marks for your terrible workings out.
IF and its a big if but if Trump wins it will be due to voters who you won't see at these rallies.
The Chinese restaurant I went to was pondering closing down. Oxford Street subdued. Was my taxi's first trip of the day (was midday) and my Uber's third (4pm).
All adds up to a bunch of economic slowdown.
And was sexism a factor when Tories gave Ted Heath the old heave-ho?
II) Breaking the glass ceiling message was fine but that's not what she was saying there.
He may end up being correct, although this time I doubt it.
The problem if he is correct will be that he returns in 2024 quoting Trafalgar "polls" as the gold standard, when they are just nonsense.
Example - SHE got more flak for his philandering than Bill did. Go figure.
Last time I checked this site was called Politicalbetting.com, not Biden's UK campaign HQ, despite the efforts of some like you!!
As for the nasty memes, they were gender-blind. Plenty of nasty memes from Trump against his male opponents in the 2016 primaries, and against Biden and his male colleagues today.
Thanks for posting. Got a like from me too.
Playing that line from the position of US Senator with a mountain of money in the bank did not come across well. Her enthusiastic chasing of the rich, while blowing off meetings with teaching unions etc didn't go down well either. Sure, you have to raise money, but actively giving the finger to big groups in the party is not the way to unity or success.
The contrast with Biden is interesting - he has worked a steady schedule of the groups that make up the Democratic party.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1320792383693488128
However, the previous elections he's comparing with didn't have anything like the current level of early voting. So you'd expect his 10% ballpark figure to be on the high side.
The many misogynistic memes against Hillary Clinton were by definition NOT gender blind. That Donald Trump is well capable of being grossly offensive to anybody is a wholly accurate but wholly irrelevant observation.
If Don Jnr. or Ivanka are claimed to be 2 points ahead of Kamala Harris or Mayor Pete by "Trafalgar" in 2024, you will refer back to their (his) faultless record in both 2016 and 2020.
Not quite sure what on earth the cops killing George Floyd has to do with it. We were talking factors influencing how people voted.
I prefer dice roll analogies and I'd put Trump's odds now as being the same as needing to roll an 11+ on 2d6 (ie 8.33%)
2/10 is pretty meaningless - thats perfectly consistent with a chance of anywhere between 10-40%ish not just 20%.
How many were 4.5% away etc is also relevant.
There is almost certainly more volatility this year than any previous year.
50/50 chance it favours Trump feels wrong as well, although that is more subjective and he might be right, but I would think if there is a 5% swing between now and the election Id be happy to back its to Trump at 1.75 and think it might be much shorter.
As for the glass ceiling line that's just pathetic. Obama shattered a glass ceiling as a young black man from Chicago - not a wealthy millionaire Washington insider who'd spent 8 years living in the White House already.
Any glass ceiling remarks following on from Obama are truly pathetic and meaningless.
No, I can't see any sexism angle in the Heath downfall. Intrigued. What are you thinking there? His unmarried and sexually ambivalent status?
Also, and more important, the volatility seems to be particularly low in this election. Biden's lead has been boringly steady for many weeks.
His goose has been well and truly cooked.
Anyhow, I see Biden is on 86% for the first time that I've noticed in a long time on 538. Perhaps the Trump victory surge is on?
If you weren't, fine.
Take a look at RCP's 2020 average and then the 2016 one below it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/trump-vs-biden-national-polls-2020-vs-2016/
If you are equating this to the sexism that holds women back, I cannot help you.
They appear to show a relatively subdued outbreak in the south (London, SE, E and SW regions) and a more worrying outbreak further north, with Wales and the W Mids. having intermediate figures.
What is the probability that Biden wins every state?
Just to an order of magnitude. Is it 1 % or 0.1 % or 0.01 % ?