Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with what he understood as working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him. Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mythology , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
CNN: Senate seats likely to switch Dem, grouped in order of likelihood (most to least):
Colorado Michigan
Arizona Maine North Carolina
Iowa Montana
South Carolina
Alabama
Georgia
They have Iowa and Montana down as the toss ups, everything above leaning Dem and everything below leaning Rep
Alabama & Michigan both have incumbent DEMOCRATIC senators on 2020 ballot; think Alabama will flip (back) to Republicans (Sen. Doug Jones's victory in 2018 was (ironically) evidence for divine intervention, and that Michiganders will keep Sen. Gary Peters.
As for rest of list, if ranked in order of likelihood for Democratic pickup, my take is:
Colorado
Arizona & Maine
Iowa & North Carolina
Georgia & Montana
South Carolina
There's also Alaska, which I'd rate as more likely than South Carolina or Montana.
367 deaths reported ain't good even if it's a Tuesday.
Using day of reporting, not date of death. We had days during the first wave that had very large numbers because there was a significant backfilling of deaths from upto 2-3 months previous. The amount of backfilling from day to day is totally inconsistent, so it is not valid to simply saying crickey big number to today compared to insert another day, and try to make any prediction of the future.
The backfilling was more of a problem in the period after the peak as it "hid the decline". It's less of a problem on this side of the curve, though, obviously, neglecting it does put you further from perfection.
But then, by the ONS figures, this data series misses out loads of the deaths anyway, so perfection in treatment of the data is a bit of a red herring. Nothing is perfect.
When we actually have date of deaths, we should use them. I highly doubt the academic tweeting this would get away with this kind of stuff in paper they try to publish, as the peer review would saying hey, "good enough", when "better" is available isn't acceptable.
You're performing a sterling service in providing peer review, but Twitter and pb.com are not, strangely enough, peer-reviewed academic papers.
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
I thought we'd see 30k today, so maybe a positive sign?
Or just shite testing?
So far case numbers have correlated to hospitalisations and deaths almost exactly, testing is widespread enough to catch any trends, however, I'm extremely wary of calling something on one day of data. We saw something like this two weeks ago and then last week the numbers got higher.
Ask the question where has growth crested or reversed, where is growing at its fastest. The relative times those happen drive microvariation in R, like a temporarily retrograde planet in the sky - as student outbreaks died back most of the major northern cities had a momentary downward trend last week before resuming course.
So Liverpool City Region is on a steady downward trend and we should see slowing in some of the other L3s about now if it has made a difference, though GM and Lancs were still growing merrily the other day. Tyneside seems to have slowed in L2, but West Yorks is growing rapidly at the moment and creeping growth in the South of England continues.
Can PR fans please have a referendum on electoral reform, where we dont have to specify what the new version is, just thats its shiny, new, and better? We could decide exactly what it is a few years after the vote, possibly.
I'd probably be pretty defeatist (or dead) if I was anti-fascist during the Spanish Civil War! I'd be well over 90 (assuming I didn't have strong opinions on it before age 10!) likely not in great health, isolated from my family most likely during the pandemic... To cap it all, the damn fascists won the war too
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Their self-declared patriotism has no bearing on whether England actually has an older radical intellectual tradition than many comparable countries. Its radicalism was radical dissenting protestantism, , usually also self-proclaimedly patriotic. Orwell most probably sought to cast this as alien I think because he was self-conscious about his own class background, which was and is common of many Englishmen of his origins.
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Their self-declared patriotism has no bearing on whether England actually has an older radical intellectual tradition than many comparable countries. Its radicalism was radical dissenting protestantism, , usually also self-proclaimedly patriotic.
367 deaths reported ain't good even if it's a Tuesday.
Using day of reporting, not date of death. We had days during the first wave that had very large numbers because there was a significant backfilling of deaths from upto 2-3 months previous. The amount of backfilling from day to day is totally inconsistent, so it is not valid to simply saying crickey big number to today compared to insert another day, and try to make any prediction of the future.
The backfilling was more of a problem in the period after the peak as it "hid the decline". It's less of a problem on this side of the curve, though, obviously, neglecting it does put you further from perfection.
But then, by the ONS figures, this data series misses out loads of the deaths anyway, so perfection in treatment of the data is a bit of a red herring. Nothing is perfect.
When we actually have date of deaths, we should use them. I highly doubt the academic tweeting this would get away with this kind of stuff in paper they try to publish, as the peer review would saying hey, "good enough", when "better" is available isn't acceptable.
You're performing a sterling service in providing peer review, but Twitter and pb.com are not, strangely enough, peer-reviewed academic papers.
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
Save it for when it matters?
Using less accurate information may work. But if more accurate information is available, why not use that?
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Their self-declared patriotism has no bearing on whether England actually has an older radical intellectual tradition than many comparable countries. Its radicalism was radical dissenting protestantism, , usually also self-proclaimedly patriotic.
Latest Trafalgar polling good for Trump. Level in Pennslyvannia, ahead where he needs to defend further south. They got it right last time.The quiet reserved Rrepublican voters are being found. There could well be some very red faces next week.
There could be.
But here's the thing.
In the last fifty years, the biggest national polling miss was 3%. (As in difference between poll of polls and actual number at the national level.)
Let's assume that this year is 1% worse (i.e. 4%) *and* that polling error is towards the Republicans.
In that case, Trump is still 5% behind.
Now, could he win with a 5% deficit? Sure. But it's not very likely.
The question is not "could Trump win?" which is obviously answered in the affirmative. But what's the probability he wins?
And the chances of (a) the worst polling error in half a Century, (b) it being in the Republicans favour, and (c) Trump's voter efficiency being much better than in 2016 - well, they aren't more than one-in-eight, realisitically.
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Their self-declared patriotism has no bearing on whether England actually has an older radical intellectual tradition than many comparable countries. Its radicalism was radical dissenting protestantism, , usually also self-proclaimedly patriotic.
I`d be among the 12% who said "not for a few years".
They are surely not sustainable psychologically for a few years?
I think it depends on what you count as 'other coronavirus restrictions'. If in 2023 we had temperature checks at airports and restaurants but nothing else (which I doubt we will, but just a hypothetical) that's very different to if cinemas/theatres/nightclubs never reopened.
Latest Trafalgar polling good for Trump. Level in Pennslyvannia, ahead where he needs to defend further south. They got it right last time.The quiet reserved Rrepublican voters are being found. There could well be some very red faces next week.
There could be.
But here's the thing.
In the last fifty years, the biggest national polling miss was 3%. (As in difference between poll of polls and actual number at the national level.)
Let's assume that this year is 1% worse (i.e. 4%) *and* that polling error is towards the Republicans.
In that case, Trump is still 5% behind.
Now, could he win with a 5% deficit? Sure. But it's not very likely.
The question is not "could Trump win?" which is obviously answered in the affirmative. But what's the probability he wins?
And the chances of (a) the worst polling error in half a Century, (b) it being in the Republicans favour, and (c) Trump's voter efficiency being much better than in 2016 - well, they aren't more than one-in-eight, realisitically.
One in eight is pretty much what 538 are simulating, 12%.
I`d be among the 12% who said "not for a few years".
They are surely not sustainable psychologically for a few years?
I agree. The fact that 67 out of 82 respondents (82%) expressed a (I would argue) VERY optimistic prognosis of our situation goes partly towards explaining why people are amenable to lockdown (with financial support). They think it`s short term.
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him . Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mytholy , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
Errr no. The parliamentarians in the civil war were presenting themselves as more "English" than the King & Co. They had (what they regarded) as positive vision for the country.
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
Their self-declared patriotism has no bearing on whether England actually has an older radical intellectual tradition than many comparable countries. Its radicalism was radical dissenting protestantism, , usually also self-proclaimedly patriotic.
Well, these things are subjective. The Levellers were often quoted by the postwar English left, for instance.
Most of the postwar English left weren't negative nationalists - the Labour party certainly wasn't. Proud Union Jack wavers, if anything.
By postwar left I should really have said 1960s and after, there. The Levellers were a favourite on leftwing English campuses from the 1960s to the 1990s ; not a lot of overt flag waving at the same time, but an awareness of a link to a particular tradition.
367 deaths reported ain't good even if it's a Tuesday.
Using day of reporting, not date of death. We had days during the first wave that had very large numbers because there was a significant backfilling of deaths from upto 2-3 months previous. The amount of backfilling from day to day is totally inconsistent, so it is not valid to simply saying crickey big number to today compared to insert another day, and try to make any prediction of the future.
The backfilling was more of a problem in the period after the peak as it "hid the decline". It's less of a problem on this side of the curve, though, obviously, neglecting it does put you further from perfection.
But then, by the ONS figures, this data series misses out loads of the deaths anyway, so perfection in treatment of the data is a bit of a red herring. Nothing is perfect.
When we actually have date of deaths, we should use them. I highly doubt the academic tweeting this would get away with this kind of stuff in paper they try to publish, as the peer review would saying hey, "good enough", when "better" is available isn't acceptable.
You're performing a sterling service in providing peer review, but Twitter and pb.com are not, strangely enough, peer-reviewed academic papers.
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
Save it for when it matters?
Using less accurate information may work. But if more accurate information is available, why not use that?
Because it is not more accurate. As you well know, the number of deaths by date of death is incomplete and subject to backfilling for days or even weeks afterwards. This gives the false impression that deaths are always falling over the past few days.
In contrast, the 7-day smoothed deaths by date reported does predict quite well the final number of deaths by day of death. If you look at the relevant curves on the gov.uk dashboard, you can see that that is the case.
In summary: individual days should most definitely not be used for comparative purposes, but it is quite valid to use the 7-day averaged deaths by date of reporting to get the latest picture.
I`d be among the 12% who said "not for a few years".
They are surely not sustainable psychologically for a few years?
I agree. The fact that 67 out of 82 respondents (82%) expressed a (I would argue) VERY optimistic prognosis of our situation goes partly towards explaining why people are amenable to lockdown (with financial support). They think it`s short term.
I dont see why we cant at the very least have next summer "off" with the same restrictions we had July-September rather than the current ones? We should have better testing and therapeutics by then, and we got it down to very low levels without those advantages. We could then make a far better job of return to universities as well.
So I would have answered spring or summer without thinking I am being optimistic or that that would be the end of covid.
Latest Trafalgar polling good for Trump. Level in Pennslyvannia, ahead where he needs to defend further south. They got it right last time.The quiet reserved Rrepublican voters are being found. There could well be some very red faces next week.
Hopefully it will be Robert Cahaly with the red face.
367 deaths reported ain't good even if it's a Tuesday.
Using day of reporting, not date of death. We had days during the first wave that had very large numbers because there was a significant backfilling of deaths from upto 2-3 months previous. The amount of backfilling from day to day is totally inconsistent, so it is not valid to simply saying crickey big number to today compared to insert another day, and try to make any prediction of the future.
The backfilling was more of a problem in the period after the peak as it "hid the decline". It's less of a problem on this side of the curve, though, obviously, neglecting it does put you further from perfection.
But then, by the ONS figures, this data series misses out loads of the deaths anyway, so perfection in treatment of the data is a bit of a red herring. Nothing is perfect.
When we actually have date of deaths, we should use them. I highly doubt the academic tweeting this would get away with this kind of stuff in paper they try to publish, as the peer review would saying hey, "good enough", when "better" is available isn't acceptable.
You're performing a sterling service in providing peer review, but Twitter and pb.com are not, strangely enough, peer-reviewed academic papers.
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
Save it for when it matters?
Using less accurate information may work. But if more accurate information is available, why not use that?
Because it is not more accurate. As you well know, the number of deaths by date of death is incomplete and subject to backfilling for days or even weeks afterwards. This gives the false impression that deaths are always falling over the past few days.
In contrast, the 7-day smoothed deaths by date reported does predict quite well the final number of deaths by day of death. If you look at the relevant curves on the gov.uk dashboard, you can see that that is the case.
In summary: individual days should most definitely not be used for comparative purposes, but it is quite valid to use the 7-day averaged deaths by date of reporting to get the latest picture.
The 7 day average of reporting day data is a okish. The actual reporting day figure is nonsense, essentially.
The "day of" data is accurate within 3-5 days (mostly done within 3 days).
"Filling" the last few days of the graph may seem more accurate, but, ultimately, it is just inventing data. A different way.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
I`d be among the 12% who said "not for a few years".
They are surely not sustainable psychologically for a few years?
I agree. The fact that 67 out of 82 respondents (82%) expressed a (I would argue) VERY optimistic prognosis of our situation goes partly towards explaining why people are amenable to lockdown (with financial support). They think it`s short term.
I dont see why we cant at the very least have next summer "off" with the same restrictions we had July-September rather than the current ones? We should have better testing and therapeutics by then, and we got it down to very low levels without those advantages. We could then make a far better job of return to universities as well.
So I would have answered spring or summer without thinking I am being optimistic or that that would be the end of covid.
I interpreted "lockdowns and other coronavirus restrictions" as "lockdowns OR other coronavirus restrictions". In which case the things you describe from this summer are coronavirus restrictions.
The trouble with ER is that despite the overall concern being in my opinion the biggest issue of our time by miles ER manages to make no-one entirely happy.
367 deaths reported ain't good even if it's a Tuesday.
Using day of reporting, not date of death. We had days during the first wave that had very large numbers because there was a significant backfilling of deaths from upto 2-3 months previous. The amount of backfilling from day to day is totally inconsistent, so it is not valid to simply saying crickey big number to today compared to insert another day, and try to make any prediction of the future.
The backfilling was more of a problem in the period after the peak as it "hid the decline". It's less of a problem on this side of the curve, though, obviously, neglecting it does put you further from perfection.
But then, by the ONS figures, this data series misses out loads of the deaths anyway, so perfection in treatment of the data is a bit of a red herring. Nothing is perfect.
When we actually have date of deaths, we should use them. I highly doubt the academic tweeting this would get away with this kind of stuff in paper they try to publish, as the peer review would saying hey, "good enough", when "better" is available isn't acceptable.
You're performing a sterling service in providing peer review, but Twitter and pb.com are not, strangely enough, peer-reviewed academic papers.
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
Save it for when it matters?
Using less accurate information may work. But if more accurate information is available, why not use that?
Because it is not more accurate. As you well know, the number of deaths by date of death is incomplete and subject to backfilling for days or even weeks afterwards. This gives the false impression that deaths are always falling over the past few days.
In contrast, the 7-day smoothed deaths by date reported does predict quite well the final number of deaths by day of death. If you look at the relevant curves on the gov.uk dashboard, you can see that that is the case.
In summary: individual days should most definitely not be used for comparative purposes, but it is quite valid to use the 7-day averaged deaths by date of reporting to get the latest picture.
In my view, much the same is true for new case data, the 7day average gives an accurate enough picture. The whole 'by specimen date' dissemination seems more useful as an analysis of the functionality of the reporting procedures than providing insight into the dynamic of the infection.
The trouble with ER is that despite the overall concern being in my opinion the biggest issue of our time by miles ER manages to make no-one entirely happy.
Essentially because they are made up of rent-a-mob bandwaggoners
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Latest Trafalgar polling good for Trump. Level in Pennslyvannia, ahead where he needs to defend further south. They got it right last time.The quiet reserved Rrepublican voters are being found. There could well be some very red faces next week.
There could be.
But here's the thing.
In the last fifty years, the biggest national polling miss was 3%. (As in difference between poll of polls and actual number at the national level.)
Let's assume that this year is 1% worse (i.e. 4%) *and* that polling error is towards the Republicans.
In that case, Trump is still 5% behind.
Now, could he win with a 5% deficit? Sure. But it's not very likely.
The question is not "could Trump win?" which is obviously answered in the affirmative. But what's the probability he wins?
And the chances of (a) the worst polling error in half a Century, (b) it being in the Republicans favour, and (c) Trump's voter efficiency being much better than in 2016 - well, they aren't more than one-in-eight, realisitically.
Rasmussen today has Trump just 2% behind and Rasmussen was spot on in 2016 with a 2% national Clinton lead
Some fairly depressing stuff there, which he thinks probably applies to other Western European countries. The whole thread is worth a look, although it's long.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
can someone tell me whether Trafalgar accurately predicted each state in 2016 or did they just say Trump would win the EC vote?
They accurately predicted Pennsylvania and Michigan yes
Any of the other states? OK, they are important states, but that is 2 out of 50, so might be just luck. When it is a two horse race and everyone knows it is close...?
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Corbyn Labour of course oppose PR as they know it means there would almost certainly never be another socialist Labour majority government again, in 2017 Labour were about 60 seats from a majority on 40% with FPTP under PR they would need around 45 to 50% for a majority
Pretty bog-standard othering there. English left-wing intellectualism is a part of the culture of the country. So is football, and Gothic fiction, and dogging, and caravan holidays, and all those other things that are done by some but not by others. If you can't get on with each other you have no hope as a country. That means accepting what's in your midst even if you don't like it, and not pretending that just because someone isn't like you they mustn't belong to the same land.
This was Orwell at his most superficial and odd, perhaps desperate to identify with what he understood as working-class people, as so many public schoolboys have been before and after him. Under these terms he no doubt would have dismissed the parliamentarians during the civil war as "self-hating", too. Contrary to the conservative mythology , often selectively quoting this part of Orwell, England, in particular, has an older radical tradition than many comparable countries.
His knowledge of "what he understood as working-class people" was probably pretty good what with that Paris and London and Wigan and Yorkshire stuff. What earthly difference does it make, where he went to school?
Latest Trafalgar polling good for Trump. Level in Pennslyvannia, ahead where he needs to defend further south. They got it right last time.The quiet reserved Rrepublican voters are being found. There could well be some very red faces next week.
There could be.
But here's the thing.
In the last fifty years, the biggest national polling miss was 3%. (As in difference between poll of polls and actual number at the national level.)
Let's assume that this year is 1% worse (i.e. 4%) *and* that polling error is towards the Republicans.
In that case, Trump is still 5% behind.
Now, could he win with a 5% deficit? Sure. But it's not very likely.
The question is not "could Trump win?" which is obviously answered in the affirmative. But what's the probability he wins?
And the chances of (a) the worst polling error in half a Century, (b) it being in the Republicans favour, and (c) Trump's voter efficiency being much better than in 2016 - well, they aren't more than one-in-eight, realisitically.
Rasmussen today has Trump just 2% behind and Rasmussen was spot on in 2016 with a 2% national Clinton lead
So were quite a number of pollsters, of whom also did well in 2018, Rasmussen took a bit of battering in the national polling then.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Consider what Labour and the LDs did in Scotland - set up a carefully debased d'Hondt system to penalise parties as they gained more and more votes, specifically (and admittedly) to keep a SNP majority from happening. How would the Tories feel about such a thing in Westminster?
One of Biden’s closing ads sums up in one minute his message during the campaign its titled Rising . Very uplifting compared to the hatefest that Trump is peddling .
can someone tell me whether Trafalgar accurately predicted each state in 2016 or did they just say Trump would win the EC vote?
They did statewide polling in about 10 states, and on average did well but not exceptionally. They had Trump leading in a couple of key swing states which other people didn't, but were out in others.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Corbyn Labour of course oppose PR as they know it means there would almost certainly never be another socialist Labour majority government again, in 2017 Labour were about 60 seats from a majority on 40% with FPTP under PR they would need around 45 to 50% for a majority
Your first sentence gives the perfect defence of PR from a Conservative perspective.
can someone tell me whether Trafalgar accurately predicted each state in 2016 or did they just say Trump would win the EC vote?
They did statewide polling in about 10 states, and on average did well but not exceptionally. They had Trump leading in a couple of key swing states which other people didn't, but were out in others.
I guess if Paul the World Cup Octopus guessed these perhaps people might also think Trump was going to win this time too
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Consider what Labour and the LDs did in Scotland - set up a carefully debased d'Hondt system to penalise parties as they gained more and more votes, specifically (and admittedly) to keep a SNP majority from happening. How would the Tories feel about such a thing in Westminster?
Which is why they should try and own electoral reform. If they do not, another party will.
With Wisconsin also look at how few polls were taken with none in the last 4 days, the polling there was just awful, hence none saw it coming. The district polling however did show worrying signs according to those who had access.
As for Trafalgar, they were on the correct side of the line which others were not in MI and PA, but the polling (average) did show a narrowing and others were margin of error correct in PA. MI the average was further out and Trafalgar was closer only off by 1.7%. Other side of the coin is Trafalgar elsewhere they were further from the result or a big miss in Nevada being on wrong side of the line and by a wide margin.
So all in all they have gained a mythical status for some from 2 correct calls, 1 is well deserved the other was margin of error with other pollsters.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Corbyn Labour of course oppose PR as they know it means there would almost certainly never be another socialist Labour majority government again, in 2017 Labour were about 60 seats from a majority on 40% with FPTP under PR they would need around 45 to 50% for a majority
Your first sentence gives the perfect defence of PR from a Conservative perspective.
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
It will happen one day. If the Tories were sensible they would introduce it in a way that would spike Labour's guns. Unfortunately they are not sensible and they are nominally "led" by a moron.
PR would just mean the LDs hold the balance of power at every election, except 2015 when it would have been UKIP in which case we would still likely have had an EU referendum and Brexit anyway, just after the 2017 and 2019 elections the LDs would have had the balance of power again to ensure we did not leave the SM
Not necessarily. PR would probably result in a break up of the current party system which might be a good thing, unless you are a tribalist. "PR" also comes in many forms, and checks and balances can ensure that fascists such as UKIP do not hold the balance of power. An electoral commission could give the public a choice. It is my guess that it will eventually happen. Whoever implements it will own it. I guess it will be Labour. As I am right of centre I feel that is probably not going to turn out well.
Corbyn Labour of course oppose PR as they know it means there would almost certainly never be another socialist Labour majority government again, in 2017 Labour were about 60 seats from a majority on 40% with FPTP under PR they would need around 45 to 50% for a majority
Your first sentence gives the perfect defence of PR from a Conservative perspective.
Both parties want power, not compromise
But in reality they do compromise with whichever faction in their party is in the ascendancy (eg ERG, Corbynites). The electorate never gets to vote on these factions, and large parts of the electorate are in effect disenfranchised, i.e. if they live in a safe seat. It needs reform, but we probably won't get it.
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
"all the positive polling for Trump" comes mostly from two outfits with a known bias - Rasmussen and Trafalgar. Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
1. when you admit that you don't know, say what you're doing to find out and, where possible, timeframes 2. tell people what they can do for themselves and their loved ones (give them as sense of control over something, at least) 3. tell people who to contact when they have questions (and make sure they can get through and get good responses)
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
"all the positive polling for Trump" comes mostly from two outfits with a known bias - Rasmussen and Trafalgar. Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
Someone pointed out the other day that you need to look very closely at the commissioners of the polling as well, especially when the sample sizes are pretty low. If people want to show polls to suit their biases, then a long established approach is to commission several polls from a single company, all with low sample sizes. This has the double advantage that it is relatively cheap, and, given the large margins of error is bound to deliver at least one "outlier" close to your favoured outcome. And you can do this with otherwise respected polling outfits, if they are prepared to do it at a slight potential cost to their reputation.
The only published polls are those which the commissioner of the polls chooses to make public. It is why, all things being equal, you are better off looking at polls with larger sample sizes, conducted by organisations which either regularly publish polls which don't consistently show biases or who have no known agendas.
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
If it is of any help, I tracked down a video of HY’s pollster; the later part of the video shows the methodology in action:
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
With a sample size of 400 and commissioned by the 'Center for American Greatness' - an extreme conservative group which, you guessed it, is vitriolic in its abuse of all things Democrat especially Biden.
A lot of downstream contamination can derive from the source.
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
"all the positive polling for Trump" comes mostly from two outfits with a known bias - Rasmussen and Trafalgar. Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
Someone pointed out the other day that you need to look very closely at the commissioners of the polling as well, especially when the sample sizes are pretty low. If people want to show polls to suit their biases, then a long established approach is to commission several polls from a single company, all with low sample sizes. This has the double advantage that it is relatively cheap, and, given the large margins of error is bound to deliver at least one "outlier" close to your favoured outcome. And you can do this with otherwise respected polling outfits, if they are prepared to do it at a slight potential cost to their reputation.
The only published polls are those which the commissioner of the polls chooses to make public. It is why, all things being equal, you are better off looking at polls with larger sample sizes, conducted by organisations which either regularly publish polls which don't consistently show biases or who have no known agendas.
Also why the recent CNN analysis of the number of polls published by the parties, as well as how they compare with previous elections in those localities, is potentially useful
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
If it is of any help, I tracked down a video of HY’s pollster; the later part of the video shows the methodology in action:
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
"all the positive polling for Trump" comes mostly from two outfits with a known bias - Rasmussen and Trafalgar. Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
The way i look at it is if you look at all the national and state polls probably 85% are postiive for Biden and 15% for Trump (Trafalgar, Rasmussen and one or two others) , That kind of matches the forecasts for 538 so in a way it makes sense. To be fair to HYUFD he posts them for balance and also does post some that are not so great for Trump, but i suspect a little of his reasoning is to remind most of us that IF Trump wins he did point out the evidence for it !
HYUFD is cherry picking, increasingly desperately. The mistake is the assumption that all people lean to the right and will therefore always revert to choosing from the right. Sometimes you'll be correct but sometimes you won't.
Others of us try to study what's actually happening on the ground.
I hope it will be a learning experience for HYUFD. 2019 GE was for me.
1. when you admit that you don't know, say what you're doing to find out and, where possible, timeframes 2. tell people what they can do for themselves and their loved ones (give them as sense of control over something, at least) 3. tell people who to contact when they have questions (and make sure they can get through and get good responses)
Who exactly is the "he", who's missing out? Fauci or the guy who operates the Yale twitter account? Do you really believe Fauci is unaware of the things you remind?
1. when you admit that you don't know, say what you're doing to find out and, where possible, timeframes 2. tell people what they can do for themselves and their loved ones (give them as sense of control over something, at least) 3. tell people who to contact when they have questions (and make sure they can get through and get good responses)
Who exactly is the "he", who's missing out? Fauci or the guy who operates the Yale twitter account? Do you really believe Fauci is unaware of the things you remind?
I know that CDC and NIH are not unaware, as I work with both, and much of the list I use in training institutions in health risk communications come from the CDC's experience. But if Fauci is going to reel off a list of how to do public health communication - a list which is pretty well known, he might as well reel off the full list.
Not sure why your response is so aggressive. I think Fauci has done a stellar job, but that does not mean no-one should point out if he gives an incomplete answer. No-one is perfect, and definitely not all the time.
And #2 on the list is a pretty damn big one to miss out.
By the way, not sure how many of you have seen the new Borat film but it is really quite extraordinary, even to some of us who have studied America for a long time. It's well worth watching.
The Alt-Right of course hate it and are trying to diss it. It's so close to the bone and almost unwatchable but only in the way Borat 1 was.
I was laughing my head off I have to say. Apart from the synagogue moment which was rather beautiful and the subject of a whole side story which I won't go into here.
A balsamic of polls this evening from the US as the campaign enters its final week. Tonight provides more evidence of the two very different types of polling we have seen this time - the first is the polling by conservative or pro-Republican pollsters for conservative or pro-Republican organisations so the likes of Trafalgar and Rasmussen on one hand the likes of Susquehanna polling for the Center for American Greatness on the other.
To be fair to Rasmussen, their national poll shows Biden still ahead by two but Trafalgar has a tie in Pennsylvania and Susquehanna has Trump up by four in Florida. The sort of polls you'd expect a failing and flagging campaign and movement to throw out as a desperate attempt to destabilise their opponents and try to galvanise their dwindling band of supporters.
Then you have other polling - CNBC has a national poll putting Biden up 51-40 while IBD/TIPP keeps Biden ahead by five on its daily rolling sample poll.
More interesting is the State polling - in Nevada, which some of the pro-Trump (or should that be anti-Biden) lobby have touted as a state which might flip from blue to red, a poll from Siena for the New York Times has Biden ahead 49-43. This would be a 1.75% swing to the Democrats from last time so small but not insignificant and such a small swing nationally would be more than enough.
Finally, a rare poll from Louisiana which is a Trump stronghold and in 2016 voted Republican by 20 points. Well, contrary to evidence from Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia, a poll from the University of New Orleans shows Trump ahead 59-36 so a swing of 1.5% to the President.
I'm fascinated to see the strength of support for Trump among white female voters which seems contrary to all the evidence in every other poll I've seen. Not that it matters much of course, Louisiana is safe in the Red column.
Presumably. But the commissioners of the poll are not exactly, erm, neutral.
I am getting very confused by all the positive polling for Trump, nationally and state polling that HYUFD keeps posting. If HYUFD is right my book is looking very sorry.
"all the positive polling for Trump" comes mostly from two outfits with a known bias - Rasmussen and Trafalgar. Susquehanna is the only surprise in my book.
Someone pointed out the other day that you need to look very closely at the commissioners of the polling as well, especially when the sample sizes are pretty low. If people want to show polls to suit their biases, then a long established approach is to commission several polls from a single company, all with low sample sizes. This has the double advantage that it is relatively cheap, and, given the large margins of error is bound to deliver at least one "outlier" close to your favoured outcome. And you can do this with otherwise respected polling outfits, if they are prepared to do it at a slight potential cost to their reputation.
The only published polls are those which the commissioner of the polls chooses to make public. It is why, all things being equal, you are better off looking at polls with larger sample sizes, conducted by organisations which either regularly publish polls which don't consistently show biases or who have no known agendas.
Thanks. So I take it from this that, if an outfit like CFAG commissions a bunch of small polls from Susuehanna, Insider Advantage, Quinnipiac etc..., it is CFAG's decision which ones get published, and the actual pollsters are not permitted to publish themselves the polls that don't tell the story CFAG wants to push and so does not publish. Is that it?
Comments
Biden 49 (+1)
Trump 43 (+1)
I think it is therefore reasonable that a different standard is applied, and that people can make comments on that basis.
Of course, when people put more effort into their comments and show more detailed analysis I greatly appreciate that - though when I do so I find that those comments don't receive nearly as much attention as my one earlier this afternoon.
I note, again, that the rate of increase using date of death data is roughly the same as I reported with the reporting date data. So what difference did your pedantry really make?
Save it for when it matters?
So Liverpool City Region is on a steady downward trend and we should see slowing in some of the other L3s about now if it has made a difference, though GM and Lancs were still growing merrily the other day. Tyneside seems to have slowed in L2, but West Yorks is growing rapidly at the moment and creeping growth in the South of England continues.
(Yes, I know this is Orwell. Why quoting it now?)
Orwell was commenting on the negative nationalist trend. Which is a completely different thing.
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1321138329035902977?s=20
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1321140059626786817?s=20
But here's the thing.
In the last fifty years, the biggest national polling miss was 3%. (As in difference between poll of polls and actual number at the national level.)
Let's assume that this year is 1% worse (i.e. 4%) *and* that polling error is towards the Republicans.
In that case, Trump is still 5% behind.
Now, could he win with a 5% deficit? Sure. But it's not very likely.
The question is not "could Trump win?" which is obviously answered in the affirmative. But what's the probability he wins?
And the chances of (a) the worst polling error in half a Century, (b) it being in the Republicans favour, and (c) Trump's voter efficiency being much better than in 2016 - well, they aren't more than one-in-eight, realisitically.
In contrast, the 7-day smoothed deaths by date reported does predict quite well the final number of deaths by day of death. If you look at the relevant curves on the gov.uk dashboard, you can see that that is the case.
In summary: individual days should most definitely not be used for comparative purposes, but it is quite valid to use the 7-day averaged deaths by date of reporting to get the latest picture.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1321142108384829446?s=20
So I would have answered spring or summer without thinking I am being optimistic or that that would be the end of covid.
The "day of" data is accurate within 3-5 days (mostly done within 3 days).
"Filling" the last few days of the graph may seem more accurate, but, ultimately, it is just inventing data. A different way.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1321044665819451392?s=20
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1321144690314481665?s=20
https://twitter.com/jeuasommenulle/status/1320686782753681408
https://twitter.com/jeuasommenulle/status/1320686862143496192
Some fairly depressing stuff there, which he thinks probably applies to other Western European countries. The whole thread is worth a look, although it's long.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1321147639052836864?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1321121036142841856?s=20
https://twitter.com/PamBondi/status/1321143363240927239?s=20
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html
Look at Wisconsin for a real shocker. Trump outperformed the polling average by 7%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html#polls
https://twitter.com/YaleSPH/status/1320827040526905344
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1321150429263286277
The rest of Europe, and the UK look on with amazement.
As for Trafalgar, they were on the correct side of the line which others were not in MI and PA, but the polling (average) did show a narrowing and others were margin of error correct in PA. MI the average was further out and Trafalgar was closer only off by 1.7%. Other side of the coin is Trafalgar elsewhere they were further from the result or a big miss in Nevada being on wrong side of the line and by a wide margin.
So all in all they have gained a mythical status for some from 2 correct calls, 1 is well deserved the other was margin of error with other pollsters.
1. when you admit that you don't know, say what you're doing to find out and, where possible, timeframes
2. tell people what they can do for themselves and their loved ones (give them as sense of control over something, at least)
3. tell people who to contact when they have questions (and make sure they can get through and get good responses)
The only published polls are those which the commissioner of the polls chooses to make public. It is why, all things being equal, you are better off looking at polls with larger sample sizes, conducted by organisations which either regularly publish polls which don't consistently show biases or who have no known agendas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-vYjo-hi8
A lot of downstream contamination can derive from the source.
To be fair to HYUFD he posts them for balance and also does post some that are not so great for Trump, but i suspect a little of his reasoning is to remind most of us that IF Trump wins he did point out the evidence for it !
Others of us try to study what's actually happening on the ground.
I hope it will be a learning experience for HYUFD. 2019 GE was for me.
Do you really believe Fauci is unaware of the things you remind?
https://amgreatness.com
https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/1321148806751244288
I like to think of it as Rust Belt Republicans want in play betting oppertunities.
Not sure why your response is so aggressive. I think Fauci has done a stellar job, but that does not mean no-one should point out if he gives an incomplete answer. No-one is perfect, and definitely not all the time.
And #2 on the list is a pretty damn big one to miss out.
The Alt-Right of course hate it and are trying to diss it. It's so close to the bone and almost unwatchable but only in the way Borat 1 was.
I was laughing my head off I have to say. Apart from the synagogue moment which was rather beautiful and the subject of a whole side story which I won't go into here.
Sacha Baron Cohen is an incredibly brave fella.
A balsamic of polls this evening from the US as the campaign enters its final week. Tonight provides more evidence of the two very different types of polling we have seen this time - the first is the polling by conservative or pro-Republican pollsters for conservative or pro-Republican organisations so the likes of Trafalgar and Rasmussen on one hand the likes of Susquehanna polling for the Center for American Greatness on the other.
To be fair to Rasmussen, their national poll shows Biden still ahead by two but Trafalgar has a tie in Pennsylvania and Susquehanna has Trump up by four in Florida. The sort of polls you'd expect a failing and flagging campaign and movement to throw out as a desperate attempt to destabilise their opponents and try to galvanise their dwindling band of supporters.
Then you have other polling - CNBC has a national poll putting Biden up 51-40 while IBD/TIPP keeps Biden ahead by five on its daily rolling sample poll.
More interesting is the State polling - in Nevada, which some of the pro-Trump (or should that be anti-Biden) lobby have touted as a state which might flip from blue to red, a poll from Siena for the New York Times has Biden ahead 49-43. This would be a 1.75% swing to the Democrats from last time so small but not insignificant and such a small swing nationally would be more than enough.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/nv102320-crosstabs/93966f5c3a9a556d/full.pdf
In California, a Berkeley/IGS poll has Biden ahead 65-29 so a 3% swing to Biden from the colossal Clinton win in 2016.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4tc8k96r?
Finally, a rare poll from Louisiana which is a Trump stronghold and in 2016 voted Republican by 20 points. Well, contrary to evidence from Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia, a poll from the University of New Orleans shows Trump ahead 59-36 so a swing of 1.5% to the President.
https://www.uno.edu/media/23301
I'm fascinated to see the strength of support for Trump among white female voters which seems contrary to all the evidence in every other poll I've seen. Not that it matters much of course, Louisiana is safe in the Red column.
No change in my map tonight.