The whole of Nottinghamshire is expected to enter England’s strictest coronavirus restrictions by the end of the week.
It is understood that pubs, bars and other venues will be forced to close across the east Midlands county from Friday.
Remembering some talk about why Nottingham was one of the areas to enter Tier 3 despite their overall infection rate decreasing:
More and more areas are going to be like that. The inevitable leakage across the age ranges has been occurring. Hospitalisations are likely to increase even if overall infection rates start to fall, because that will conceal a multitude. We need the infection rates in these demographics to start coming down.
I suspect that is what edinburgh looks like as well in reality.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What I have to admire about HYUFD is that however much stick he gets he is unshakably polite. I wish I could show such restraint 🤣! While I have never agreed with him on his support for The Clown, his politeness has drawn me to the conclusion that he must be a jolly good egg off the web as well as on it. We should all raise a glass to him!
This is what the Trump rampers miss out on. Trump won the teeniest, tiniest majority in a number of states exaggerating mammothly his electoral college votes.
To get a majority of the ECVs again he needs to repeat that trick but that is about as plausible as lightning striking the same tree in a forest twice. There is simply no room for error from Trump - if he doesn't hold onto 100% of his votes from last time, if Biden gains extra votes over Clinton last time - then Trump needs to win new votes over and there doesn't seem to be any effort whatsoever into winning new votes into the Trump column.
Without new votes for Trump, he is out.
Given the polls and the turnout figures now I reckon Trump's chances of winning are about the same as rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice.
That depends, if Trump gets even more white working class turnout in Michigan and Pennsylvania for example than 2016 plus a few votes from Other candidates and a slightly higher African American vote he could still win.
While Wisconsin looks lost for him now, even Trafalgar has Biden ahead there, Michigan for example looks a better prospect for him, the ABC poll today has Michigan voters trusting Trump on the economy more than Biden 48% to 44% for example, in Wisconsin voters trust Biden on the economy by 52% to 44% for Trump.
In Michigan suburban voters still favour Trump by 49% to 46% for Biden, in Wisconsin by contrast suburban voters favour Biden over Trump 56% to 44%.
Trump's chances are objectively zero but you put your finger on the one thing that could still win it for him. TURNOUT. We know it will break all records. This orange-hued political leader has energized a nation - for and against.
The "against" is clear to see. There is little doubt now that Joe Biden will score over 75m votes. Even money when I tipped it here 10 days ago. 1.35 now. Smug City.
That's none too sleepy. That is a vast number of people who for one reason or another are beyond desperate to end this presidency.
But what if "his people" are even more motivated? What if, come 3/11, a veritable army of Americans, each one light of skin and even lighter on education - each and every one of them pumped up beyond belief by sugary drinks and enthusiasm for their man and his vision - hit the polling stations and vote with all of their heart & soul to give him another 4 years to finish what he's started? And what if it's just enough?
A romantic notion, I know, and certainly unlikely. But dreams do come true sometimes.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What I have to admire about HYUFD is that however much stick he gets he is unshakably polite. I wish I could show such restraint 🤣! While I have never agreed with him on his support for The Clown, his politeness has drawn me to the conclusion that he must be a jolly good egg off the web as well as on it. We should all raise a glass to him!
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What I have to admire about HYUFD is that however much stick he gets he is unshakably polite. I wish I could show such restraint 🤣! While I have never agreed with him on his support for The Clown, his politeness has drawn me to the conclusion that he must be a jolly good egg off the web as well as on it. We should all raise a glass to him!
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What I have to admire about HYUFD is that however much stick he gets he is unshakably polite. I wish I could show such restraint 🤣! While I have never agreed with him on his support for The Clown, his politeness has drawn me to the conclusion that he must be a jolly good egg off the web as well as on it. We should all raise a glass to him!
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
That sounds almost... Nate Silver-ish.
I was about to say the same thing! If PB ever closes a career at 538 beckons for you HYUFD (or RCP if thats more your leaning )
Looking at the polls out so far today I can't see how anyone can still be betting on Trump.
One more time
'While Wisconsin looks lost for him now, even Trafalgar has Biden ahead there, Michigan for example looks a better prospect for him, the ABC poll today has Michigan voters trusting Trump on the economy more than Biden 48% to 44% for example, in Wisconsin voters trust Biden on the economy by 52% to 44% for Trump.
In Michigan suburban voters still favour Trump by 49% to 46% for Biden, in Wisconsin by contrast suburban voters favour Biden over Trump 56% to 44%.
The ABC +17 WI poll today is clearly an outlier despite it being from an A rated pollster. However I do think the reason Trump is doing badly is Covid is especially bad there right now and images of super spreading rallies while the state is struggling very badly with the virus again is part for what is probably a knee jerk reaction more in this particular poll, However on voting day (and in the few days of up front voting left) this factor will still be there. Trump isnt getting close in WI. Michigan is closer but I'm still confident Biden's winning there, its PA or bust for me for Biden. I know he has other potential routes without it but as I posted earlier I think he will be close in the sun belt states but not enough to take him home without PA as well.
On the scenario you posted I think Biden actually wins 270-268 though.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Hmm, I think you are being unfair because you don't like his message. He is, and always has been, selective with his evidence, but in spite of me often disagreeing with him he does not strike me as arrogant; far from it. Naïve, perhaps, certainly with respect to Boris Johnson, but not arrogant.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Agreed. While his defence of Trafalgar verges on the obtuse (and to my mind justifies a little gentle derision, occasionally), in terms of tone he is far more sinned against than sinning. I'm certainly guilty of more snark than he is.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Hmm, I think you are being unfair because you don't like his message. He is, and always has been, selective with his evidence, but in spite of me often disagreeing with him he does not strike me as arrogant; far from it. Naïve, perhaps, certainly with respect to Boris Johnson, but not arrogant.
I don’t *not* like his message. I personally think there’s a higher chance of Trump winning than the polling average suggests. I don’t however go on like I know better than the likes of Nate Silver. I also try and back-up any point I make with evidence, or make it clear that it is my opinion and based on little evidence.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Agreed. While his defence of Trafalgar verges on the obtuse (and to my mind justifies a little gentle derision, occasionally), in terms of tone he is far more sinned against than sinning. I'm certainly guilty of more snark than he is.
We all laughed at the Yougov outlier this time last year, but HY posted it for weeks. It was right!
I am hoping HY and Mr Cahaly won't have the last laugh next week.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
You will be right or you will be wrong. If you are wrong, you should admit it.
Given your current forecast is a Trump win, you will be wrong if Biden wins (unless of course you change your forecast before election day which of course you are at liberty to do.)
For what it's worth my forecast is the same as yours – yet I will gladly admit I was 100% wrong if Biden wins by whatever margin.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Thank you @kinabalu . As a Biden supporting leaver I am overwhelmed with your generosity of spirit.
- Yes, well, gritted teeth and all, but I accept uncomfortable truths.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What I have to admire about HYUFD is that however much stick he gets he is unshakably polite. I wish I could show such restraint 🤣! While I have never agreed with him on his support for The Clown, his politeness has drawn me to the conclusion that he must be a jolly good egg off the web as well as on it. We should all raise a glass to him!
He's a really nice guy IRL I think and probably nothing like his obsessive online persona. He's a community spirited sort of chap I think and before he went into local politics was one of the best geezers to have a general chat about nonpolitical matters on PB. He's a real movie buff as I recall and likes classic 70s and 80s films, as do I.
I still amusingly remember the time that @HYUFD tried to tell me, someone who lives in the NE and knows many people who work at Nissan, that I was wrong about where Nissan workers lived.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Hmm, I think you are being unfair because you don't like his message. He is, and always has been, selective with his evidence, but in spite of me often disagreeing with him he does not strike me as arrogant; far from it. Naïve, perhaps, certainly with respect to Boris Johnson, but not arrogant.
I don’t *not* like his message. I personally think there’s a higher chance of Trump winning than the polling average suggests. I don’t however go on like I know better than the likes of Nate Silver. I also try and back-up any point I make with evidence, or make it clear that it is my opinion and based on little evidence.
Well in that case I suggest you award yourself a bonus mark, before you remove the beam of arrogance from thine own eye.
Looking at the polls out so far today I can't see how anyone can still be betting on Trump.
One more time
'While Wisconsin looks lost for him now, even Trafalgar has Biden ahead there, Michigan for example looks a better prospect for him, the ABC poll today has Michigan voters trusting Trump on the economy more than Biden 48% to 44% for example, in Wisconsin voters trust Biden on the economy by 52% to 44% for Trump.
In Michigan suburban voters still favour Trump by 49% to 46% for Biden, in Wisconsin by contrast suburban voters favour Biden over Trump 56% to 44%.
The whole of Nottinghamshire is expected to enter England’s strictest coronavirus restrictions by the end of the week.
It is understood that pubs, bars and other venues will be forced to close across the east Midlands county from Friday.
Remembering some talk about why Nottingham was one of the areas to enter Tier 3 despite their overall infection rate decreasing:
More and more areas are going to be like that. The inevitable leakage across the age ranges has been occurring. Hospitalisations are likely to increase even if overall infection rates start to fall, because that will conceal a multitude. We need the infection rates in these demographics to start coming down.
It is why waiting for the virus to come to you and then hope you can close it down is totally the wrong approach. By the time people start appearing at testing centres in big numbers, you already have a problem and the transition leak will have already be well under way.
That graph illustrates a point made by John Edmunds in the infamous Channel 4 interview, where he said you should time the toughest social distancing measures to coincide with the peak of the number of infectious people, so that it reduces the long tail.
The natural course of the infection in the under 25 group (who don't generally get very sick) looks much more like a classic uncontrolled epidemic where the limiting factor is simply running out of susceptible people, i.e. herd immunity.
Looking at the polls out so far today I can't see how anyone can still be betting on Trump.
One more time
'While Wisconsin looks lost for him now, even Trafalgar has Biden ahead there, Michigan for example looks a better prospect for him, the ABC poll today has Michigan voters trusting Trump on the economy more than Biden 48% to 44% for example, in Wisconsin voters trust Biden on the economy by 52% to 44% for Trump.
In Michigan suburban voters still favour Trump by 49% to 46% for Biden, in Wisconsin by contrast suburban voters favour Biden over Trump 56% to 44%.
The ABC +17 WI poll today is clearly an outlier despite it being from an A rated pollster. However I do think the reason Trump is doing badly is Covid is especially bad there right now and images of super spreading rallies while the state is struggling very badly with the virus again is part for what is probably a knee jerk reaction more in this particular poll, However on voting day (and in the few days of up front voting left) this factor will still be there. Trump isnt getting close in WI. Michigan is closer but I'm still confident Biden's winning there, its PA or bust for me for Biden. I know he has other potential routes without it but as I posted earlier I think he will be close in the sun belt states but not enough to take him home without PA as well.
On the scenario you posted I think Biden actually wins 270-268 though.
My take on the US election: the polls are going to be boringly right, to within a point or two of the 538 averages either way in most states, and not very far away in any of the battlegrounds. I keep looking for counter-evidence, and whilst you can occasionally find snippets which make you think Trump might be doing better than the polls suggest, just as often you come across snippets pointing to the opposite conclusion.
Of course this isn't proof - people regions with mask mandates might be those more inclined to take Covid precautions generally, but it's strong evidence.
Correlation does not imply causation, although it may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while pointing and mouthing "over there" (with apologies to XKCD).
Had a quick look at the report. I'd have a few questions, such as why 1 July was chosen for the index date, how that relates to mask mandates coming in and whether there are any other significant differences between the areas served (e.g. deprivation, density, types of employment, age profile etc). I'd also like to see what happens a few weeks to the right of these graphs. Nice dose-response type relationship though.
You could do a similar analysis in e.g. a Sweden versus France comparison (as one poster here is wont to do) and conclude that hospitals in countries with more mask wearing are seeing larger increases in cases. In that comparison I think we all know that Sweden and France have other differences which which can explain the results. It's not impossible that there are other reasons for the results in these graphs too.
TLDR: It's suggestive, isn't it? But better studies will come over the coming months and years and answer the question of whether mask-wearing helped and to what extent.
On the scenario you posted I think Biden actually wins 270-268 though.
Your right I had forgotten to add in Arizona which I am expecting Biden to flip. If he does that means Trump needs MI or Wi (or something else he doesn't hold right now)?
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Well, that is giving a different view.
I don't agree with it any more than you and am bored with the circular discussion on Trafalgar (where I do feel HYUFD doesn't actually engage on a level beyond "but 2016" to consider whether this is "real" polling or just thinking of a number and adding five for Trump).
The solution to that is not to engage any more. The debate has been had; "but 2016" isn't a great argument but is still an argument; and HYUFD is polite about putting it. It's agree to disagree time, at least until evidence emerges next week.
This is what the Trump rampers miss out on. Trump won the teeniest, tiniest majority in a number of states exaggerating mammothly his electoral college votes.
To get a majority of the ECVs again he needs to repeat that trick but that is about as plausible as lightning striking the same tree in a forest twice. There is simply no room for error from Trump - if he doesn't hold onto 100% of his votes from last time, if Biden gains extra votes over Clinton last time - then Trump needs to win new votes over and there doesn't seem to be any effort whatsoever into winning new votes into the Trump column.
Without new votes for Trump, he is out.
Given the polls and the turnout figures now I reckon Trump's chances of winning are about the same as rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice.
1 in 36? More like rolling an 11 or 12 imho. 1 in 12. Not impossible, but I don't fancy his chances at all.
A fortnight ago I had it as him rolling a six on one dice. One in six.
A few days ago I had it as him rolling an 11 or 12 on two dice. One in twelve.
Today I'd downgrade it to Biden rolling snake eyes. One in thirty six.
Quite simply time is up. Nothing has changed poll wise from a fortnight ago but that is good news for Biden - most voters have already voted now. Plus the claimed enthusiasm gap' or voter suppression issues aren't happening, turnout is going to be high. So that's closed down a couple of the paths I had thought could lead to Trump winning.
Now we are simply in catastrophic polling error territory. Late swing, suppression and enthusiasm can't save Trump only something catastrophically wrong in his direction can do and I'd put the odds of that as less than 5%. Hence snake eyes.
Fair enough. Thanks for your answer. My main worry is that Biden loses Texas, Georgia and Arizona by less than 1%. Trump hangs on to enough of those he took last time by similar margins to win the EC with an even larger popular vote deficit (Which evidence seems to bake in). It's unlikely to fall so perfectly, but not impossible.
There's bad dreams, there's nightmares, and beyond that lurid visions of the future so terrifying and depressing as to make one dread switching off the light in the bedroom.
On the scenario you posted I think Biden actually wins 270-268 though.
Your right I had forgotten to add in Arizona which I am expecting Biden to flip. If he does that means Trump needs MI or Wi (or something else he doesn't hold right now)?
Biden's simplest path is {Hold 2016} + Az + Mi + Wi + Ne-2 I think right now.
Of course this isn't proof - people regions with mask mandates might be those more inclined to take Covid precautions generally, but it's strong evidence.
Correlation does not imply causation, although it may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while pointing and mouthing "over there" (with apologies to XKCD).
Had a quick look at the report. I'd have a few questions, such as why 1 July was chosen for the index date, how that relates to mask mandates coming in and whether there are any other significant differences between the areas served (e.g. deprivation, density, types of employment, age profile etc). I'd also like to see what happens a few weeks to the right of these graphs. Nice dose-response type relationship though.
You could do a similar analysis in e.g. a Sweden versus France comparison (as one poster here is wont to do) and conclude that hospitals in countries with more mask wearing are seeing larger increases in cases. In that comparison I think we all know that Sweden and France have other differences which which can explain the results. It's not impossible that there are other reasons for the results in these graphs too.
TLDR: It's suggestive, isn't it? But better studies will come over the coming months and years and answer the question of whether mask-wearing helped and to what extent.
They will - but it's not the first such study from a US state. At the very least, I'd say it's strong evidence against the 'masks cause Covid' crowd.
What exactly is 'low brow' about a story covering women's sexual health?
It is clear sign of how very male, small-c conservative this site is that your and @Foxy's schoolboyish take treated the story like a joke.
Good luck to Lily and to millions like her!
There's definitely more sneering at the "liberal left" and the BBC than people complaining about the Sun being "low brow". Not just here, but in the media in general.
I guess it's like all those people who write shitty ill-informed national newspaper columns who are always the ones complaining about being "censored"
Clearly only testing those with the clearest symptoms (and even then...)
Even at the height of the first wave here, with very small numbers of tests, carefully held and only used on patients in hospitals who doctors thought probably had COVID, we didn't see a majority of tests coming back positive.
This is what the Trump rampers miss out on. Trump won the teeniest, tiniest majority in a number of states exaggerating mammothly his electoral college votes.
To get a majority of the ECVs again he needs to repeat that trick but that is about as plausible as lightning striking the same tree in a forest twice. There is simply no room for error from Trump - if he doesn't hold onto 100% of his votes from last time, if Biden gains extra votes over Clinton last time - then Trump needs to win new votes over and there doesn't seem to be any effort whatsoever into winning new votes into the Trump column.
Without new votes for Trump, he is out.
Given the polls and the turnout figures now I reckon Trump's chances of winning are about the same as rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice.
Turnout in Pennsylvania so far? 30% of 2016 total. six days to go.
How can anybody predict anything from that? For me that's an alarming low number. Biden needs to get his guys in early, right?
They ain;t showing up on election day.
Do you ever bother to listen to the explanations people have given you as to why early voting is low in PA? Honestly it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Well, that is giving a different view.
I don't agree with it any more than you and am bored with the circular discussion on Trafalgar (where I do feel HYUFD doesn't actually engage on a level beyond "but 2016" to consider whether this is "real" polling or just thinking of a number and adding five for Trump).
The solution to that is not to engage any more. The debate has been had; "but 2016" isn't a great argument but is still an argument; and HYUFD is polite about putting it. It's agree to disagree time, at least until evidence emerges next week.
HYUFD is polite in what he writes but also infuriating as he doesn't actually pay attention to or consider what you write, which is a bit rude. Other people can acknowledge each other's points but arguing with HYUFD is like talking with a poorly written early 1990s examples of Turing Test programs . . . it doesn't matter what response you give you very quickly realising you are getting the exact same pre-scripted responses back again and again.
What exactly is 'low brow' about a story covering women's sexual health?
It is clear sign of how very male, small-c conservative this site is that your and @Foxy's schoolboyish take treated the story like a joke.
Good luck to Lily and to millions like her!
There's definitely more sneering at the "liberal left" and the BBC than people complaining about the Sun being "low brow". Not just here, but in the media in general.
I guess it's like all those people who write shitty ill-informed national newspaper columns who are always the ones complaining about being "censored"
You obviously never watched a BBC comedy panel show...sneering at the Sun and the Mail is the go to joke if stuck for something to say.
For me , although there are lots of permutations, who wins the election will come down to two states, FL and PA. If Biden wins FL he's going to win, end of. If he loses, though there may be some ups and downs , I think it will come down to PA. I still think the national polls are reflecting more that Biden is doing better in places like TX and GA but I don't expect him to win either or NC. AZ I think he will. I am pretty confident he will win MI and WI but I have real doubts about PA, yes he's about 5% up but the mood music there seems so volatile. So I think if it comes down to PA (which I think it will as i suspect Trump will win FL just), we may have to wait a while to know who's won and can expect some shenanigans over postal votes. So much against my personal wishes I really can see Trump falling over the line, despite losing the popular vote by more than 2016 and only just getting past 270 this time. Now I need a stiff drink
This is my exact fear – and my forecast – although I think in that scenario, it ends up 269-269?
The one prediction I want to make is that I think Biden wins Georgia in almost all circumstances.
Well if that happens he is in the White House.
What makes you so confident?
(P.S. I share others' scepticism about a PA Biden win)
I think the failed (but slim) Stacey Abrams election attempt will drive further turnout in favour of the Dems.
Look at Fulton County - Atlanta - 344,876 votes so far. That’s 80% of the 2016 turnout already.
There is a plausible scenario whereby Biden underperforms in the rustbelt but arrives in the White House via the sunbelt.
I see Ladbrokes now have Trump favourite to win FL at 8/11
And as Florida goes, so goes the presidency, generally. But stop bothering people with facts.
That is simply not true, but then facts never really seem to impinge much on your world view. Biden could easily win whilst losing Florida
Sorry but this is balls, Florida has picked the winner since 1996, and almost every time before that. After Ohio it is the state that best represents the diversity, both economically and demographically, of the whole US. If your message has failed in Florida, it's really quite unlikely it will work in the other states you need to flip.
Ohio is going to be safe R, and Florida may not be far behind.
The point under discussion is that because Florida has generally voted for the winner Biden can't win if he loses Florida. That's absolute bollox.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
What exactly is 'low brow' about a story covering women's sexual health?
It is clear sign of how very male, small-c conservative this site is that your and @Foxy's schoolboyish take treated the story like a joke.
Good luck to Lily and to millions like her!
There's definitely more sneering at the "liberal left" and the BBC than people complaining about the Sun being "low brow". Not just here, but in the media in general.
I guess it's like all those people who write shitty ill-informed national newspaper columns who are always the ones complaining about being "censored"
You obviously never watched a BBC comedy panel show...sneering at the Sun and the Mail is the go to joke if stuck for something to say.
Comedians trend left, journalists trend right. That oughtn't surprise anyone.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Well, that is giving a different view.
I don't agree with it any more than you and am bored with the circular discussion on Trafalgar (where I do feel HYUFD doesn't actually engage on a level beyond "but 2016" to consider whether this is "real" polling or just thinking of a number and adding five for Trump).
The solution to that is not to engage any more. The debate has been had; "but 2016" isn't a great argument but is still an argument; and HYUFD is polite about putting it. It's agree to disagree time, at least until evidence emerges next week.
HYUFD is polite in what he writes but also infuriating as he doesn't actually pay attention to or consider what you write, which is a bit rude. Other people can acknowledge each other's points but arguing with HYUFD is like talking with a poorly written early 1990s examples of Turing Test programs . . . it doesn't matter what response you give you very quickly realising you are getting the exact same pre-scripted responses back again and again.
Recently he fouind an interesting paper on Scottish fishermens' politics. But on scrutiny it turned out to be about captains/owners of larger boats, so explaining a certain element of Brexit politics in the Scottish coastal fringe but leaving the inshore fisheries unresolved - which would match an observed split in sentiment (and a common sense analysis to do with e.g. processing and export to the continent). He just couldn't accept that his first reading was wrong - which is not good for him, because it throws his firmly expressed views on Tory gains in Scotland into significant doubt. At least Paul the Octopus didn't tie six of his tentacles into useless knots.
Of course this isn't proof - people regions with mask mandates might be those more inclined to take Covid precautions generally, but it's strong evidence.
Correlation does not imply causation, although it may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while pointing and mouthing "over there" (with apologies to XKCD).
Had a quick look at the report. I'd have a few questions, such as why 1 July was chosen for the index date, how that relates to mask mandates coming in and whether there are any other significant differences between the areas served (e.g. deprivation, density, types of employment, age profile etc). I'd also like to see what happens a few weeks to the right of these graphs. Nice dose-response type relationship though.
You could do a similar analysis in e.g. a Sweden versus France comparison (as one poster here is wont to do) and conclude that hospitals in countries with more mask wearing are seeing larger increases in cases. In that comparison I think we all know that Sweden and France have other differences which which can explain the results. It's not impossible that there are other reasons for the results in these graphs too.
TLDR: It's suggestive, isn't it? But better studies will come over the coming months and years and answer the question of whether mask-wearing helped and to what extent.
They will - but it's not the first such study from a US state. At the very least, I'd say it's strong evidence against the 'masks cause Covid' crowd.
Yes, I imagine we'll get systematic reviews of the various observational studies and the results from those will be pretty compelling. There is a startling lack of anything semi-serious showing harm from masks, so far.
Lots of issues in individual studies though, which will make it an interesting and difficult thing to assess. Even as subtle as Democratic legislators generally (?) taking COVID more seriously and introducing more restrictions like mask wearing, but those legislators were themselves elected by more Democratic-leaning electorates who may themselves be taking more precautions than Republican-leaning electorates - i.e. those areas that introduce measures like mask wearing may be intrinsically more likely to be careful and limit spread anyway, nevermind demographic differences such as ability to work from home etc. Hard to tease out, although there are ways, particularly with so many different areas introducing different measures at different times, there are plenty of potential control populations.
Of course this isn't proof - people regions with mask mandates might be those more inclined to take Covid precautions generally, but it's strong evidence.
Correlation does not imply causation, although it may waggle its eyebrows suggestively while pointing and mouthing "over there" (with apologies to XKCD).
Had a quick look at the report. I'd have a few questions, such as why 1 July was chosen for the index date, how that relates to mask mandates coming in and whether there are any other significant differences between the areas served (e.g. deprivation, density, types of employment, age profile etc). I'd also like to see what happens a few weeks to the right of these graphs. Nice dose-response type relationship though.
You could do a similar analysis in e.g. a Sweden versus France comparison (as one poster here is wont to do) and conclude that hospitals in countries with more mask wearing are seeing larger increases in cases. In that comparison I think we all know that Sweden and France have other differences which which can explain the results. It's not impossible that there are other reasons for the results in these graphs too.
TLDR: It's suggestive, isn't it? But better studies will come over the coming months and years and answer the question of whether mask-wearing helped and to what extent.
This one, from Oklahoma, posted a day or two ago, is a good one. They're practically running an A/B test, although I'd want to check for other variables (such as those cities imposing mask mandates also taking other precautions)
That tariff income is not from China, it is paid by US consumers, but the Donald doesnt seem to realise that...
It will be a bit of both, compared to the counterfactual of the previous tariffs: Chinese suppliers will take lower profit margins to some extent, while US consumers will face higher prices to some extent, depending on price elasticity and import substitutability.
I still amusingly remember the time that @HYUFD tried to tell me, someone who lives in the NE and knows many people who work at Nissan, that I was wrong about where Nissan workers lived.
I was recently dubbed a doctoral thesis candidate in US constitutional law by @HYUFD because I dared to point out a basic misunderstanding of the US constitution that he had made.
I'm not of course, but I do live in the US and had to bone up on basic civics to become a citizen.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Ok, I hear you. And there is still quite a differential on the thick xenophobe front. It's only 38% of Leavers per this survey - but given it's also only 20% in total that is a tiny 1% of the rest, say zero.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
They are still going basically every night in Portland and a fairly regular basis in Seattle. They also had rioting and looting on LA and NY. This isn't going to stop when Trump loses.
That tariff income is not from China, it is paid by US consumers, but the Donald doesnt seem to realise that...
It will be a bit of both, compared to the counterfactual of the previous tariffs: Chinese suppliers will take lower profit margins to some extent, while US consumers will face higher prices to some extent, depending on price elasticity and import substitutability.
It's still an effective sales tax on specific goods, levied by the government and then redistributed to the suppliers of other goods tariffed back by China. When the government starts taxing certain consumption and propping up other industries with the revenue, it no longer has much in the way of free market credentials. In short, Donald Trump is a filthy commie.
Hopefully. That means the virus will go large for no obvious reason when winning and then lose to our exciting tool kit of remedies. Or am I taking this a bit too far?
To be fair, for all the joking, this is quite clearly a local initiative aimed at making the Tier 1 restrictions as effective as possible within the bounds of their local authority. What's wrong with that? OK so they're having some fun with the language, but it doesn't actually change the rules for anyone in the area. And i'm sure most people in the area, who no doubt don't want to find themselves pushed into a higher Tier, would probably welcome some sensible enforcement to ensure compliance with the existing rules.
HYUFD will you have the courage and good grace to come on here Nov 4th, as I did after the 2019 General Election, and admit that you got this hopelessly and utterly wrong?
Rhetorical so thanks in advance.
If Biden wins a landslide yes, if Trump narrowly wins the EC again but Biden wins the popular vote will you do the same?
What about if Biden wins a narrow EC victory?
If Biden wins I for one will be delighted to admit I was wrong to forecast a Trump win.
I was forecasting a narrow Biden EC win last month, I have now shifted to a narrow Trump EC win (with Biden still winning the popular vote), I have never forecast a Biden landslide so will apologise if I get that wrong not for the former
Lol. You haven’t just been “forecasting a narrow Trump EC win”, you’ve been arrogantly carrying on that you know better than everyone else.
I don't think he has been giving that impression at all. He has stuck his neck out and given a different view, often to great derision. I hope he is wrong though!
Rubbish. He doesn’t give a “different view” - he scoffs at the likes of professionals like Nate Silver, carries on like he knows better, and gives no evidence for any assertion other than “Yeah but Rasmussun and Trafalgar”.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
Well, that is giving a different view.
I don't agree with it any more than you and am bored with the circular discussion on Trafalgar (where I do feel HYUFD doesn't actually engage on a level beyond "but 2016" to consider whether this is "real" polling or just thinking of a number and adding five for Trump).
The solution to that is not to engage any more. The debate has been had; "but 2016" isn't a great argument but is still an argument; and HYUFD is polite about putting it. It's agree to disagree time, at least until evidence emerges next week.
HYUFD is polite in what he writes but also infuriating as he doesn't actually pay attention to or consider what you write, which is a bit rude. Other people can acknowledge each other's points but arguing with HYUFD is like talking with a poorly written early 1990s examples of Turing Test programs . . . it doesn't matter what response you give you very quickly realising you are getting the exact same pre-scripted responses back again and again.
I agree with you regarding having an argument with HYUFD (both IanB2 and myself tried to explain to him how illogical his responses were to the challenges we had made to his positions some time ago and got nowhere - he never actually responds specifically to your response at all [as you say a bad Turing m/c]). However I have never thought he was being rude. I have always thought that he just doesn't understand a logical construct.
It is a shame as I enjoy his posts, he knows a lot about some stuff so I would like to have that discussion on topics.
Trafalgar is a good example: RCS1000 and Alistair have put good arguments as to why it is just made up. Interestingly TSE also highlighted a leading question given by Trafalgar. Now on the face of it that is more evidence against Trafalgar, but it isn't in my opinion because why would they create a dodgy question, if they aren't actually asking questions at all. They don't need to. I suspect the Trafalgar story is somewhat more complicated than they are just fake, but I don't know what
It would be good to have a discussion on that topic with HYUFD.
Or does he simply believe they got it right last time so they must be right this time regardless of whether they are actually doing any polling.
If so does he believe that if by chance I predict the throw of a dice then I can always predict the throw of a dice?
Hmmm.... Like this: "The percentage of care homes with an outbreak increased progressively with care home size, from 3.7% of care homes with <20 registered places to 90.2% of care homes with 90+ registered places • Almost all outbreaks (336/348) occurred in care homes for older people. There were 1,915 COVID-related deaths (i.e. with any mention of COVID-19 on the death certificate) in this period, occurring in 321 care homes. • COVID-19 associated mortality was concentrated in its impact, more than half of COVID-19 deaths were in 64 homes and a quarter of all COVID-19 deaths were in just 25 homes."
90% of all care homes with more than 90 residents suffered a Covid outbreak and a quarter (almost 500) deaths were in just 25 homes. I mean, wow. These institutions should be named.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Ok, I hear you. And there is still quite a differential on the thick xenophobe front. It's only 38% of Leavers per this survey - but given it's also only 20% in total that is a tiny 1% of the rest, say zero.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
I wonder who said -
"If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'."
On the current numbers, Europe is utterly f**ked with this virus. (and that includes us).
I think we need to start coming to terms with the idea that our economy will be about 10% smaller than it was before. A bit worse than 2008 but not the end of the world. Some sectors, sadly those with a lot of relatively unskilled labour, are going to be significantly smaller than before for the foreseeable.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Ok, I hear you. And there is still quite a differential on the thick xenophobe front. It's only 38% of Leavers per this survey - but given it's also only 20% in total that is a tiny 1% of the rest, say zero.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
It's quite depressing when you come across somebody you know quite well, know they are quite intelligent, and yet realise they are full on Trumpian. And even if they just about acknowledge some of his faults, totally accept/believe every line that the Trump campaign and his media fanbois push about Biden and "the left".
I think Covid hasn't helped, because such people have often largely been devoid of normal social contact and are totally captured by what they read on the internet and social media. It starts by deliberately seeking out sites outside the mainstream which overtime develops in an overarching belief in a conspiracy to shut down alternative viewpoints (mostly pro Trump ones).
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Lol the deranged tantrum is still going strong after 4 years.
On the current numbers, Europe is utterly f**ked with this virus. (and that includes us).
Yet people are still insisting that we, with infection rates below other areas still getting it worse, have some form of immunity that will make it all go away completely any day now.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Ok, I hear you. And there is still quite a differential on the thick xenophobe front. It's only 38% of Leavers per this survey - but given it's also only 20% in total that is a tiny 1% of the rest, say zero.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
I wonder who said -
"If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'."
Was this before or after they were invited to the broom cupboard?
On the current numbers, Europe is utterly f**ked with this virus. (and that includes us).
Yet people are still insisting that we, with infection rates below other areas still getting it worse, have some form of immunity that will make it all go away completely any day now.
Once you factor in the 70% herd immunity we had in April and the number of false positives then the UK is best placed to deal with the plague.
Interesting data in the Header. And useful too because it allows us to close out the perennial argument about to what extent the Leave vote was driven by primitive social and cultural attitudes. You know, the old "Some Leavers are like that but by no means all," sentiment. Everyone agrees with this banality but it gets us precisely nowhere unless we can quantify the "Some".
What proportion of Leavers are thick xenophobes? This is the question one could never answer with confidence before this survey but now we can.
"Trump does better with those who voted Leave in the referendum with 38% going for the incumbent."
Viola. A mere 38% of the 17.4m. Not quite 2 in every 5. So there are only of the order 6.6m thick xenophobes in the whole country who voted Leave in 2016. Meaning that 10.8m of those who voted Leave - a clear majority - are NOT thick xenophobes.
So let this be an end to it. It might be a bitter pill to swallow for Remainers such as myself but it's definitive.
Far too generous of you. Leavers might not ALL be fans of Trump-I'm sure in some cases he's too liberal- but there are other ways of judging them. 75% of them support capital punishment for instance and to support Leave you had to get in line behind every loopy racist in the land. They're no different to the Italian fascists who 'just wanted the trains to run on time'. It's bullshit and they're beyond redemption
Ok, I hear you. And there is still quite a differential on the thick xenophobe front. It's only 38% of Leavers per this survey - but given it's also only 20% in total that is a tiny 1% of the rest, say zero.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
I wonder who said -
"If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'."
Was this before or after they were invited to the broom cupboard?
LOL. Perhaps we should ask the person who said that.....
Just complete lack of someone fronting up over West Yorkshire tier 3, which has been on the table for ages and is now critical, is starting to drive me to distraction. The vacuum in the absence of having a metro mayor in place is telling.
Leeds screaming that the hospitals are full, whilst Kirklees dig in, with cross-party support, because they have a marginally lower infection rate - there's under 20% in it I think.
I think some of the resistance in Kirklees goes back to the summer when the whole borough was restricted for an outbreak in one part. Again, that's simply not the case now - it is high everywhere. They should back down now, see the situation as it is, and do the right thing for both ourselves and our neighbouring authorities, before this turns more disastrous. Is seven deaths this week in an ongoing care home outbreak on your patch not enough?
Comments
The "against" is clear to see. There is little doubt now that Joe Biden will score over 75m votes. Even money when I tipped it here 10 days ago. 1.35 now. Smug City.
That's none too sleepy. That is a vast number of people who for one reason or another are beyond desperate to end this presidency.
But what if "his people" are even more motivated? What if, come 3/11, a veritable army of Americans, each one light of skin and even lighter on education - each and every one of them pumped up beyond belief by sugary drinks and enthusiasm for their man and his vision - hit the polling stations and vote with all of their heart & soul to give him another 4 years to finish what he's started? And what if it's just enough?
A romantic notion, I know, and certainly unlikely. But dreams do come true sometimes.
It’s never “However, I think X is right, rather than Y, because of Z”. It’s always “Y got X wrong in 2016. They can be ignored. Trump is clearly winning”.
While his defence of Trafalgar verges on the obtuse (and to my mind justifies a little gentle derision, occasionally), in terms of tone he is far more sinned against than sinning. I'm certainly guilty of more snark than he is.
Top FEC Official’s Undisclosed Ties to Trump Raise Concerns Over Agency Neutrality
https://www.propublica.org/article/top-fec-officials-undisclosed-ties-to-trump-raise-concerns-over-agency-neutrality
A top Federal Election Commission official, whose division regulates campaign cash, has shown support for President Trump and has close ties to his 2016 campaign attorney, Don McGahn...
I am hoping HY and Mr Cahaly won't have the last laugh next week.
You will be right or you will be wrong. If you are wrong, you should admit it.
Given your current forecast is a Trump win, you will be wrong if Biden wins (unless of course you change your forecast before election day which of course you are at liberty to do.)
For what it's worth my forecast is the same as yours – yet I will gladly admit I was 100% wrong if Biden wins by whatever margin.
In such a scenario, so should you.
He's a really nice guy IRL I think and probably nothing like his obsessive online persona. He's a community spirited sort of chap I think and before he went into local politics was one of the best geezers to have a general chat about nonpolitical matters on PB. He's a real movie buff as I recall and likes classic 70s and 80s films, as do I.
The natural course of the infection in the under 25 group (who don't generally get very sick) looks much more like a classic uncontrolled epidemic where the limiting factor is simply running out of susceptible people, i.e. herd immunity.
Biden +11 (October)
Biden +7 (September)
Biden +6 (September)
Biden +7 (September)
Biden +7 (July)
Biden +11 (May)
It is clear sign of how very male, small-c conservative this site is that your and @Foxy's schoolboyish take treated the story like a joke.
Good luck to Lily and to millions like her!
‘I’m Absolutely Expecting Him to Do Something Weird’: How Trump Could End His Presidency
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/28/trump-wild-transition-433025
Had a quick look at the report. I'd have a few questions, such as why 1 July was chosen for the index date, how that relates to mask mandates coming in and whether there are any other significant differences between the areas served (e.g. deprivation, density, types of employment, age profile etc). I'd also like to see what happens a few weeks to the right of these graphs. Nice dose-response type relationship though.
You could do a similar analysis in e.g. a Sweden versus France comparison (as one poster here is wont to do) and conclude that hospitals in countries with more mask wearing are seeing larger increases in cases. In that comparison I think we all know that Sweden and France have other differences which which can explain the results. It's not impossible that there are other reasons for the results in these graphs too.
TLDR: It's suggestive, isn't it? But better studies will come over the coming months and years and answer the question of whether mask-wearing helped and to what extent.
(Otherwise, I agree with you.)
I note it was the top read story on their site.
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1321426758424354816
I don't agree with it any more than you and am bored with the circular discussion on Trafalgar (where I do feel HYUFD doesn't actually engage on a level beyond "but 2016" to consider whether this is "real" polling or just thinking of a number and adding five for Trump).
The solution to that is not to engage any more. The debate has been had; "but 2016" isn't a great argument but is still an argument; and HYUFD is polite about putting it. It's agree to disagree time, at least until evidence emerges next week.
And then there's this here post of yours.
At the very least, I'd say it's strong evidence against the 'masks cause Covid' crowd.
However Biden leads in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Trump leads in Florida and Texas.
Interestingly Biden leads in Texas and Florida prior to LV weighting. Does that suggest a high turnout election favours Biden in both these states?
I guess it's like all those people who write shitty ill-informed national newspaper columns who are always the ones complaining about being "censored"
After a rough 2020 globally, a Brexit deal and a Biden victory on the third of November would make that a very good day.
Talk about contrasting images....
LOL
https://twitter.com/MaxWalshITV/status/1321427600917565442?s=19
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3/status/1321208763915866114
Lots of issues in individual studies though, which will make it an interesting and difficult thing to assess. Even as subtle as Democratic legislators generally (?) taking COVID more seriously and introducing more restrictions like mask wearing, but those legislators were themselves elected by more Democratic-leaning electorates who may themselves be taking more precautions than Republican-leaning electorates - i.e. those areas that introduce measures like mask wearing may be intrinsically more likely to be careful and limit spread anyway, nevermind demographic differences such as ability to work from home etc. Hard to tease out, although there are ways, particularly with so many different areas introducing different measures at different times, there are plenty of potential control populations.
Last time I looked.
Difficult not to think that the powers-that-be have collectively lost their minds.
Everything crossed
f*ck sake...
I'm not of course, but I do live in the US and had to bone up on basic civics to become a citizen.
Well, I guess the bits in question are below the brow.
Thus there are 6.6m thick xenophobes in the UK and they pretty much ALL voted Leave. We can spin it that way if you like.
However, the majority of Leavers appear to want the end of Trump and I have to give credit for that. It really is a litmus test question for me. Any person who wants to see the end of Trump, I will happily break bread and pass the time of day with.
https://twitter.com/mcnalu/status/1321459613481504768?s=20
When the government starts taxing certain consumption and propping up other industries with the revenue, it no longer has much in the way of free market credentials.
In short, Donald Trump is a filthy commie.
I agree with you regarding having an argument with HYUFD (both IanB2 and myself tried to explain to him how illogical his responses were to the challenges we had made to his positions some time ago and got nowhere - he never actually responds specifically to your response at all [as you say a bad Turing m/c]). However I have never thought he was being rude. I have always thought that he just doesn't understand a logical construct.
It is a shame as I enjoy his posts, he knows a lot about some stuff so I would like to have that discussion on topics.
Trafalgar is a good example: RCS1000 and Alistair have put good arguments as to why it is just made up. Interestingly TSE also highlighted a leading question given by Trafalgar. Now on the face of it that is more evidence against Trafalgar, but it isn't in my opinion because why would they create a dodgy question, if they aren't actually asking questions at all. They don't need to. I suspect the Trafalgar story is somewhat more complicated than they are just fake, but I don't know what
It would be good to have a discussion on that topic with HYUFD.
Or does he simply believe they got it right last time so they must be right this time regardless of whether they are actually doing any polling.
If so does he believe that if by chance I predict the throw of a dice then I can always predict the throw of a dice?
Like this:
"The percentage of care homes with an outbreak increased progressively with care
home size, from 3.7% of care homes with <20 registered places to 90.2% of care
homes with 90+ registered places
• Almost all outbreaks (336/348) occurred in care homes for older people. There were
1,915 COVID-related deaths (i.e. with any mention of COVID-19 on the death
certificate) in this period, occurring in 321 care homes.
• COVID-19 associated mortality was concentrated in its impact, more than half of
COVID-19 deaths were in 64 homes and a quarter of all COVID-19 deaths were in just
25 homes."
90% of all care homes with more than 90 residents suffered a Covid outbreak and a quarter (almost 500) deaths were in just 25 homes. I mean, wow. These institutions should be named.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54716993
Lockdown light, will there also be diet lockdown. lockdown zero, lockdown max, vanilla lockdown, lockdown with a hint of lemon...
"If you'll forgive the name-drop i remember sitting down to lunch in an outdoor restaurant near Cannes when Boris Becker said 'If you could replace all the French with English this would be the nicest country in the world'."
I think Covid hasn't helped, because such people have often largely been devoid of normal social contact and are totally captured by what they read on the internet and social media. It starts by deliberately seeking out sites outside the mainstream which overtime develops in an overarching belief in a conspiracy to shut down alternative viewpoints (mostly pro Trump ones).
So still way beyond the bounds of credibility
Leeds screaming that the hospitals are full, whilst Kirklees dig in, with cross-party support, because they have a marginally lower infection rate - there's under 20% in it I think.
I think some of the resistance in Kirklees goes back to the summer when the whole borough was restricted for an outbreak in one part. Again, that's simply not the case now - it is high everywhere. They should back down now, see the situation as it is, and do the right thing for both ourselves and our neighbouring authorities, before this turns more disastrous.
Is seven deaths this week in an ongoing care home outbreak on your patch not enough?
White House Declares Pandemic Over As It Cites Renowned Scientist Ivanka Trump
The president's daughter, of course, has no training or background as a scientific expert.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/white-house-declares-pandemic-over-as-it-cites-renowned-scientist-ivanka-trump_uk_5f991da9c5b61d63241dc2e0