Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
IF that's right, beats me why Obama and Biden are rushing there on Saturday.
It's not right, Michigan is closer than that. My feeling with these visits is Biden is making sure of the win, something Clinton didnt do, she assumed the win, So I see visits like this and MN as Biden doing what he can to ensure he wins the states he has to, I understand he's off to PA as well before Tuesday.
Biden has only done 2 state visits this week so far, Trump has done 8 state visits since Sunday
It's almost as if Biden is respecting the pandemic while Trump is being irresponsible.
It's almost as if Biden is confident because a majority of voters dislike Trump's irresponsibility.
More indicative is Trump effectively cancelling the victory party. Or at least his attendance at it
Someone earlier quoted the image of sandbags and tanks at the WH on election night, made me laugh and then,,,,,,he's going to have to be dragged out screaming isnt he? sighs
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
And if Trump wins BIG, Kinabalu, you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You accept THAT, one presumes.
If Trump wins at all, let alone big, it will shake me to the very core. I will lose faith in both my judgment and the future.
Although it will be little consolation at least you know you made a rational (albeit wildly wrong) call as those who collect their winnings (having made completely irrational bets) gloat over you.
Ha. Yes. But thin gruel indeed. Ironically, I started out ages ago looking outre with "Trump Toast" when the polling was ok for him and he was the odds on fav. Then the data changed and caught me up! So now I look data driven rather than instinct driven, which is not quite the case.
So let me get this right: What you are telling me is that when you lose it won't be because you are a great punter who got unlucky, but that you are actually an idiot.
I have to do something about my posts. That sounded like a rather nasty insult when it was actually meant to be a joke, just taking the mickey out of you owning up to gut instinct when I had complimented you on your foresight.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
If, and its a (as Trump would say) a very bigly IF, Trump wins there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters, as if Trump loses the NV by half those numbers he isn't going to win the EV so if he does win some pollsters will have got it very very wrong.
I think red faces is a big understatement.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
It really annoyed me all those holiday makers gaming their destinations over the summer. I knew someone who booked Portugal and Spain before getting caught out by Croatia. No one needed a foreign holiday this year.
What a fantastic opportunity for the Government to genuinely promote staycations. So OK the Airlines would be in big trouble, but they are anyway, and that plague-free six week window over the summer could have done wonders for domestic tourism.
I went on holiday this year (Turkey). I also went to the Cheltenham festival in March. I also go to see my 90-yr old mother regularly in her house and went this week in fact for a game of chess.
People will do what people have done. "No one needed a foreign holiday this year" is just PB privileged big house and garden bollocks.
And look back up thread as to where that attitude has lead us.
So you are saying that the reason we are having a second wave of Covid is because people went on holiday this year? That article linked above makes just as many assumptions as it supposedly demolishes.
Has anyone done an analysis of viral genomes (ie genetic markers) comparable to that work on Wales? It showed that a significant proportion of outbreaks earlier this summer were actually imported from England (so far as they could tell), rather than simply bubbling up from endemic low level infection. That would be conclusive, not least because if the virus strains hadn't been imported then they wouldn't have caused the outbreaks.
Early on Ceredigion, especially in the South, had very low numbers. It's risen since, but not that much. How much of that rise was due to students at Aberystwyth. Similarly, how much in Pembrokeshire was due to activity, if any, at Pembroke Dock/Milford Haven?
I wouldn't know myself, but virus geentic studies would help explain at least some of the incidence.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
So there's today + the actual election day to add. Very democrat county.
The Github ElectionProject website has over 36 million mail ballots outstanding right now. With only 4 days to go and conventional wisdom being that the mail-ins heavily favour the Dems can someone reassure me that this isn't developing into a problem for Biden? Perhaps SeaShanty can give us a view when he turns up.
In most states mail-in ballots can be dropped off at the polling station on the day (same as the UK, no?). Biden-Harris campaign are heavily pushing the line that if you haven't returned your ballot by mail yet, don't mail it but take it to the polling station.
Some western states conduct 100% by-mail elections these days and have done for some time. They all provide drop-off locations and a limited number of in-person on-the-day polling places. They're almost all heavily blue (OR, WA, HI) or red (UT) though, with only CO being a bit swingy.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Having called Boris PM and GE19 right if Trump narrowly wins the EC even if Biden wins the popular vote I will probably be one of the if not the most accurate election forecasters on here at the moment
Out of curiosity, is there anywhere where we can see the 2019 and other old predictions from PBers? We should really keep a database of final calls.
In 2019 pretty much everyone here predicted a Con majority apart from @CorrectHorseBattery . So not much bragging rights.
True, I was thinking about predictions for size of majority. Or maybe we could set up a Good Judgement Project style thing with %s and brier scores.
Come to think of it, is anyone else here on Good Judgement Open? I'm on there as Quincel, feel free to drop me a follow.
I called it wrong, which was the first time in quite a lot of GEs. I thought it would be a small Tory maj or even a hung parliament. I allowed my own dislike of Johnson to colour my judgement. I have though, I would humbly submit, been correct about Boris Johnson being highly unsuitable to be PM.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Having called Boris PM and GE19 right if Trump narrowly wins the EC even if Biden wins the popular vote I will probably be one of the if not the most accurate election forecasters on here at the moment
Out of curiosity, is there anywhere where we can see the 2019 and other old predictions from PBers? We should really keep a database of final calls.
In 2019 pretty much everyone here predicted a Con majority apart from @CorrectHorseBattery . So not much bragging rights.
True, I was thinking about predictions for size of majority. Or maybe we could set up a Good Judgement Project style thing with %s and brier scores.
Come to think of it, is anyone else here on Good Judgement Open? I'm on there as Quincel, feel free to drop me a follow.
I called it wrong, which was the first time in quite a lot of GEs. I thought it would be a small Tory maj or even a hung parliament. I allowed my own dislike of Johnson to colour my judgement. I have though, I would humbly submit, been correct about Boris Johnson being highly unsuitable to be PM.
Even the MPs who put him there were correct about that.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
I'll agree with you on this. If Trump wins the pollsters WILL NEVER EVER be believed again. It's a big 'if' though to potentially get the polling this wrong though, and they were correct at national level in 2016.
IBD is 50.5% Biden and 44.9% Trump nationally but Trump still leads 51.8% to 43.8% for Biden in the MidWest and 47.9% to 47.1% for Biden in the South as Biden's national lead comes from a big 62.8% to 30.9% lead in the North East and a 53.7% to 43.3% lead for Biden in the West
Trump also leads narrowly with 45-64s now and with over 65s, however Biden has a big 55.7% to 39.1% lead with 18 to 44s
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
Apparently that IBD has Trump LEADING with Hispanics overall in the country.
Which means Biden must be doing extremely well with whites. Unless you are over polling urban whites happy to talk about voting democrat that is.....
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
And if Trump wins BIG, Kinabalu, you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You accept THAT, one presumes.
If Trump wins at all, let alone big, it will shake me to the very core. I will lose faith in both my judgment and the future.
Although it will be little consolation at least you know you made a rational (albeit wildly wrong) call as those who collect their winnings (having made completely irrational bets) gloat over you.
Ha. Yes. But thin gruel indeed. Ironically, I started out ages ago looking outre with "Trump Toast" when the polling was ok for him and he was the odds on fav. Then the data changed and caught me up! So now I look data driven rather than instinct driven, which is not quite the case.
So let me get this right: What you are telling me is that when you lose it won't be because you are a great punter who got unlucky, but that you are actually an idiot.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
IF that's right, beats me why Obama and Biden are rushing there on Saturday.
It's not right, Michigan is closer than that. My feeling with these visits is Biden is making sure of the win, something Clinton didnt do, she assumed the win, So I see visits like this and MN as Biden doing what he can to ensure he wins the states he has to, I understand he's off to PA as well before Tuesday.
Biden has only done 2 state visits this week so far, Trump has done 8 state visits since Sunday
Trump likes rallies - and is desperate.
The "let him out" rallies outside Attica in Spring will be fun to watch.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Plenty of Billy bobs in WI, MI and PA too. And MN.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
The IBD poll is very bad for Trump. It is one of the few A-Grade firms to put him remotely within hailing distance of a win and as you indicate, it s drifting the wrong way. I suspect 7% national is about the minimum we can expect to see now, but even that would put Biden comfortably over the line.
Based on this, I'm increasingly of the view NC stays Red. Interested in PBers counter-arguments.
My main points would be:
1. GOP has narrowed the EV gap again with the Democrats by 2pp rounded to 6%. The gap between Dem and Rep EV is now far lower than it was in 2016; 2. The Black vote is 19% of the EV vs 22% of the electorate. It could come out in droves on voting day but you need a massive reversal of trend, especially given the number who have voted; 3. <40 voters massively under represented in EV - 26% vs 36/7% of electorate.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
I am not so sure. Brexit, remember? And the SNP and Labour will tend to have simialr policies apart from independence, so why bother voting for a third place, maybe fourth place, party in Scotland? It's FPTP remember - so
Remember also - Labour made lots of promises in 2014 and were even harder than the Tories in stamping them out as seen in the post-referendum Scotland Act revisions. Devomax has been promised before, notably by one G. Brown who promised Scots they'd get more devolution than anywhere else in the world, or words to that effect.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
And if Trump wins BIG, Kinabalu, you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You accept THAT, one presumes.
If Trump wins at all, let alone big, it will shake me to the very core. I will lose faith in both my judgment and the future.
Although it will be little consolation at least you know you made a rational (albeit wildly wrong) call as those who collect their winnings (having made completely irrational bets) gloat over you.
Ha. Yes. But thin gruel indeed. Ironically, I started out ages ago looking outre with "Trump Toast" when the polling was ok for him and he was the odds on fav. Then the data changed and caught me up! So now I look data driven rather than instinct driven, which is not quite the case.
So let me get this right: What you are telling me is that when you lose it won't be because you are a great punter who got unlucky, but that you are actually an idiot.
I have to do something about my posts. That sounded like a rather nasty insult when it was actually meant to be a joke, just taking the mickey out of you owning up to gut instinct when I had complimented you on your foresight.
It read to me just as you meant it. So pas de problemo.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Plenty of Billy bobs in WI, MI and PA too. And MN.
So half the figure of REACT. 50k seems more inline with the data on rate of increase in hospital admissions etc than the 100k figure (which is what the peak in March / April was supposed to be).
Data derived from latest ONS incidence data for England -
That trend in the percentage of cases picked up by Dido's Test'n'Trace is horrible. However fast the testing capacity growth is, it can't double every fortnight.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
It is not 7% nationally, it is 5.6% nationally 44.9% Trump and 50.5% Biden
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
I'll agree with you on this. If Trump wins the pollsters WILL NEVER EVER be believed again. It's a big 'if' though to potentially get the polling this wrong though, and they were correct at national level in 2016.
Why the assumption that the polls were wrong in that scenario?
It's far more likely to happen as a result of shenanigans with the [non]-counting of votes and other interference with the election process.
Trump has already told you that he regards votes against him as fraudulent. If he can find a way to dump those votes he won't hesitate.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
A recent Westminster voting poll has Labour back in second place in Scotland.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
what percentage of votes do you think "others" will get this time? clinton got 48.2% v 46.1% but i think 52.2% v 46.1% would be more like it this time and it matters when trying to price up the popular vote bands. i'm tempted by trump 46.00-48.99 at 11/4 but i think the third party vote really needs to get squeezed for him to get over 46.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
"You don't really want independence; you just haven't met the right Labour leader yet."
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Having called Boris PM and GE19 right if Trump narrowly wins the EC even if Biden wins the popular vote I will probably be one of the if not the most accurate election forecasters on here at the moment
Out of curiosity, is there anywhere where we can see the 2019 and other old predictions from PBers? We should really keep a database of final calls.
If you use the mobile site then the search facility has good filter control to narrow down a search to specific posters and date ranges.
I have used it to extensively review my own previous predictions on here.
If, and its a (as Trump would say) a very bigly IF, Trump wins there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters, as if Trump loses the NV by half those numbers he isn't going to win the EV so if he does win some pollsters will have got it very very wrong.
I think red faces is a big understatement.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
Polls have got considerably more accurate over the years since Truman/Dewey and their recent 'failures' are more in the mind than in fact, as regulars here know very well. Nevertheless for Donald to retain the Presidency from 7 or more points down would indicate a polling error of unprecedented proportions. (I think the first Obama win was their worst effort in recent times and that was only out by about 3%.)
It would therefore indeed be a complete disater from the industry.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
Mm, that's true about the changes. But who would have cared about how England votes, other than the Tories of course? It's a different country anyway, and more so than ever now. It's what looks winnable in Scotland that counts for FPTP. Also - by definition most of their MPs would be new, without any incumbent bonus. And the one in place is atypical, if that isn't an absurd thing to say about a population size of one.
The dynamics are of course quite different for the Holyrood elections, but will SKS have come to a clear position on indy which people will - crucially - believe? In that respect he would need to keep the SLAB types under control. Who would go berserk, most of them, at anything less than full patriotic Britishness. Which brings me to the other issue with Scottish Labour is that there is an unresolved contradiction. It's supposed to be but isn't really a standalone organization (the electoral law had to be fiddled by Labour to allow it to call itself 'Scottish Labour'). So the leader is in a difficult position vis a vis the head honcho in London. Yet, again, if the h. h. SKS orders him about, the SLAB leader can invoke his position, pretendy as it may be, to defy SKS (bit like the Scottish Tory leader is pretending to be independent of London and criticise it at the moment). Not sure where that leaves the Labour Party, especially as Mr Leonard has seen off his challengers for the foreseeable future (which surprised me,and which says a great deal about the challengers).
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
"You don't really want independence; you just haven't met the right Labour leader yet."
Exactly. I can't imagine, I can't visualise, anybody from that lot doing a decent job as FM. Smith, Alexander, oh yes - but since then?
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
"You don't really want independence; you just haven't met the right Labour leader yet."
There is some evidence to suggest that a lot of people voted Leave to kick the establishment and now regret it. The same might be said for those that say they are in favour of Scottish Independence
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
I'll agree with you on this. If Trump wins the pollsters WILL NEVER EVER be believed again. It's a big 'if' though to potentially get the polling this wrong though, and they were correct at national level in 2016.
Why the assumption that the polls were wrong in that scenario?
It's far more likely to happen as a result of shenanigans with the [non]-counting of votes and other interference with the election process.
Trump has already told you that he regards votes against him as fraudulent. If he can find a way to dump those votes he won't hesitate.
Thing is the national polls have an average of say 7-9% as an average (say 538 and RCP) , If Biden wins the NV by that many hes president, Clinton won by 2% and lost 2 or 3 states by very small margins. The difference is huge at this time +5 nationally or so maybe more. So if Trump is to win again even more narrowly, the polls need to be wrong by a lot more say 3 -4% out at least. There has been very little sign of this over the last few months, unlike the ups and downs in the Clinton/Trump NV race which even included an occasional Trump lead and with Clinton sinking in the last week,, Biden has remained consistently around 7% or more most of the time. So IF Trump wins the EV the national polls will have been wildly out as well as the state ones this time, so the polling companies will have pretty much no credibility. (well except for Trafalgar and Rasmussen, the new gold standards!!). It's largely because of this consistency in Bidens NV lead as opposed to Clintons up and down polling in 2016 that i believe Biden will win, though I do think Trump will be closer than some think.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
"You don't really want independence; you just haven't met the right Labour leader yet."
There is some evidence to suggest that a lot of people voted Leave to kick the establishment and now regret it. The same might be said for those that say they are in favour of Scottish Independence
A fair point to consider. But voting Remain is strongly correlated with voting SNP/Yes. So that pattern isn't simple
IF that's right, beats me why Obama and Biden are rushing there on Saturday.
It's not right, Michigan is closer than that. My feeling with these visits is Biden is making sure of the win, something Clinton didnt do, she assumed the win, So I see visits like this and MN as Biden doing what he can to ensure he wins the states he has to, I understand he's off to PA as well before Tuesday.
Biden has only done 2 state visits this week so far, Trump has done 8 state visits since Sunday
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
Left-wing independence supporters who had switched from Lab-to-SNP in 2015 went and voted Corbyn Labour in 2017. They then switched back to the SNP in the face of unrelenting "No to 2nd Ref" SLab messaging.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
No, sadly the Independence ship has sailed.
I am not persuaded and fail to see why Starmer cannot exceed the 27% vote share in Scotland achieved by Corbyn in 2017.
Because Johnson happened, and even when he goes the spectre of someone like Johnson happening again remains.
I strongly suspect that the Yes support currently owes a great deal to Johnson and Covid. When Johnson goes and the pandemic recedes, I expect the Yes vote to fall back quite sharply. If Labour appears to be heading for victory across GB, Scotland will want to ' join the party'!
I'm pretty sure the SNP will back a minority Labour, probably with some sort of referendum deal. Maybe including Devo max or a N Ireland European relationship. But I don't see the switch to Labour happening anytime soon. Boris did not take account of the overwhelming remain vote nor consult with the Scottish Government on what a Brexit deal should look like. I don't see any way forward for the status quo in this case. Even under a Labour Government. The baw's burst!
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Thank you for that it's very interesting. I hope you are wrong, but you put forward a good argument.
I hope someone responds to you as I would like to see a counter argument.
Of course you have carried out proper analysis there and are not relying on a pollster just cos they got it right last time.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
Apparently that IBD has Trump LEADING with Hispanics overall in the country.
Which means Biden must be doing extremely well with whites. Unless you are over polling urban whites happy to talk about voting democrat that is.....
Unless you are picking out a sub-sample showing something you want to see.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Plenty of Billy bobs in WI, MI and PA too. And MN.
It does boil down to this. Are the polls missing 8 million BillyBobs who will turn out for Trump. If they are it will be a close election.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
I'll take C please,,,:)
Could be a variety of things. I am sure you won't forget D, which has happened on a few occasions, namely postal workers unilaterally chucking mail in ballots in bins that were posted to strongly Republican areas....
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Even IBD is slowly inching away from Trump, after getting within 2 or 3 a week or so back hes drifting again. To be honest 7% nationally sounds about right, I just feel Trumps stuck at 43/44% and even if state polling is closer will be very hard for him to win with under 45%
what percentage of votes do you think "others" will get this time? clinton got 48.2% v 46.1% but i think 52.2% v 46.1% would be more like it this time and it matters when trying to price up the popular vote bands. i'm tempted by trump 46.00-48.99 at 11/4 but i think the third party vote really needs to get squeezed for him to get over 46.
I dont think your figures will be far out though perhaps both just a shade lower. The problem for Trump is he doesnt seem to be gaining much anywhere, his small gains with black and hispanic voters is being offset by his losses in white voters. I just dont see how he gets over 46% this time. low to mid 45s is more my estimate
If, and its a (as Trump would say) a very bigly IF, Trump wins there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters, as if Trump loses the NV by half those numbers he isn't going to win the EV so if he does win some pollsters will have got it very very wrong.
I think red faces is a big understatement.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
Polls have got considerably more accurate over the years since Truman/Dewey and their recent 'failures' are more in the mind than in fact, as regulars here know very well. Nevertheless for Donald to retain the Presidency from 7 or more points down would indicate a polling error of unprecedented proportions. (I think the first Obama win was their worst effort in recent times and that was only out by about 3%.)
It would therefore indeed be a complete disater from the industry.
That is true.
Which is why it was interesting to see Nate Silver say Trump could only win now via fraud. His business is absolutely screwed if he gets this one wrong. For most of the other polling companies, political polling is not profitable and they do it more for the publicity side.
My take on the ONS study: thoroughly depressing reading
After the last survey suggested cases, while rising, had started to level off, the latest results suggest it is onwards and upwards for Covid-19!
The most striking figure is that it estimates 1% of people in England had Covid-19 over the period in question. People discuss the rate at which cases are doubling might slow, but at current levels we really can't afford any more doublings at all.
Clearly the current restrictions aren't getting R below 1 when combined with schools and universities being open, so it seems a continuation of the trend is inevitable. I'm not sure there is the political will (or willingness among the wider population) for another lockdown, but in the absence of that the current halfway house of Tier 2/3 restrictions look likely to continue indefinitely.
The precedent I'm worried about is 2004. Many ingredients are the same.
1. Republican incumbent who lost the popular vote in the previous election. 2. Republican incumbent who provokes derision from opposition, and incomprehension that anyone would support him - e.g. "misunderestimate", "Stupid White Men", etc. 3. Major external crisis, which proves divisive. 4. Increase in voter turnout.
In 2004 the increase in turnout delivered Bush II a popular vote victory by 50.7% - 48.3%
In particular, (2) is the element that is used today as reason to suspect that the polls won't pick up support for the Republican incumbent, since Liberals are so intolerant of support for that President. So how did polling do in 2004?
Well, to pick the first example from my Google search, the final Pew Research Center poll predicted 51 - 48 against Kerry.
So, opinion polls are capable of detecting an increase in turnout that would favour a Republican incumbent who faces a hostile liberal media and "polite society" opinion.
It's not impossible that it happens, but I think a major mismatch between polling and official results should be regarded as prima facie evidence of election fraud, rather than opinion poll defect.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
Ballots lean Dem 13000 to 12000 odd in Butler, it's GOP but the Dem bias toward receiving mail ballots shows up even in blood red counties. Since it's rural these Dems are probably slightly more likely than average to be Trump leaning - overall it's likely a wash. It's a cock up but the roots are there in the conspiracy to use the post office as a political tool and that's all on Trump/Dejoy.
Anyone putting their mail in the ballot anywhere except the west coast states would have to be living under a rock at this point tbh now. Main thing is they get the ballots.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
But the SNP lost a lot of ground in 2017 - though recovered much of it in 2019.Labour's 2019 vote in Scotland is likely to have been depressed by the clear evidence it was heading for a heavy defeat across GB.
Mm, that's true about the changes. But who would have cared about how England votes, other than the Tories of course? It's a different country anyway, and more so than ever now. It's what looks winnable in Scotland that counts for FPTP. Also - by definition most of their MPs would be new, without any incumbent bonus. And the one in place is atypical, if that isn't an absurd thing to say about a population size of one.
The dynamics are of course quite different for the Holyrood elections, but will SKS have come to a clear position on indy which people will - crucially - believe? In that respect he would need to keep the SLAB types under control. Who would go berserk, most of them, at anything less than full patriotic Britishness. Which brings me to the other issue with Scottish Labour is that there is an unresolved contradiction. It's supposed to be but isn't really a standalone organization (the electoral law had to be fiddled by Labour to allow it to call itself 'Scottish Labour'). So the leader is in a difficult position vis a vis the head honcho in London. Yet, again, if the h. h. SKS orders him about, the SLAB leader can invoke his position, pretendy as it may be, to defy SKS (bit like the Scottish Tory leader is pretending to be independent of London and criticise it at the moment). Not sure where that leaves the Labour Party, especially as Mr Leonard has seen off his challengers for the foreseeable future (which surprised me,and which says a great deal about the challengers).
Two points. First I seriously doubt that there really is a great appetite across Scotland for another period of extended constitutional wrangling. Memories of the bitter divisions caused by the 2014 Referendum remain painful - as well as the post- Brexit torture suffered across the UK as a whole. The behaviour of Johnson will have provoked a strong emotional desire for an alternative - and that will have been reinforced by Sturgeon's relatively surefooted response faced with the ongoing Covid agony.Johnson is already widely discredited now across the UK, and his departure is likely to remove much of the emotional need for an alternative. Second I doubt that the personality of the SLab leader matters as much as you imply.Certainly it has significance for Holyrood - but far fewer turn out for that election anyway, which in itself is an indication that Westminster elections are viewed as more important to Scottish voters and accordingly treated more seriously.
The precedent I'm worried about is 2004. Many ingredients are the same.
1. Republican incumbent who lost the popular vote in the previous election. 2. Republican incumbent who provokes derision from opposition, and incomprehension that anyone would support him - e.g. "misunderestimate", "Stupid White Men", etc. 3. Major external crisis, which proves divisive. 4. Increase in voter turnout.
In 2004 the increase in turnout delivered Bush II a popular vote victory by 50.7% - 48.3%
In particular, (2) is the element that is used today as reason to suspect that the polls won't pick up support for the Republican incumbent, since Liberals are so intolerant of support for that President. So how did polling do in 2004?
Well, to pick the first example from my Google search, the final Pew Research Center poll predicted 51 - 48 against Kerry.
So, opinion polls are capable of detecting an increase in turnout that would favour a Republican incumbent who faces a hostile liberal media and "polite society" opinion.
It's not impossible that it happens, but I think a major mismatch between polling and official results should be regarded as prima facie evidence of election fraud, rather than opinion poll defect.
In 2004 I was a poor PhD student and not political betting but I still find it quite suprising that anyone thought Kerry had a chance. That he got as close as he did completely floored me.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Plenty of Billy bobs in WI, MI and PA too. And MN.
It does boil down to this. Are the polls missing 8 million BillyBobs who will turn out for Trump. If they are it will be a close election.
That's my view. Like 2016, they will be under-represented again in the polling. Plus lower Black / Hispanic turnout
My take on the ONS study: thoroughly depressing reading
After the last survey suggested cases, while rising, had started to level off, the latest results suggest it is onwards and upwards for Covid-19!
The most striking figure is that it estimates 1% of people in England had Covid-19 over the period in question. People discuss the rate at which cases are doubling might slow, but at current levels we really can't afford any more doublings at all.
Clearly the current restrictions aren't getting R below 1 when combined with schools and universities being open, so it seems a continuation of the trend is inevitable. I'm not sure there is the political will (or willingness among the wider population) for another lockdown, but in the absence of that the current halfway house of Tier 2/3 restrictions look likely to continue indefinitely.
And yet the battle between any kind of growth function and "don't want restrictions" is only going to end one way; the question is simply what level of infections is intolerable?
And if you accept the need for extra restrictions in (say) a month's time, is it really worth trying to stagger on until then?
If, and its a (as Trump would say) a very bigly IF, Trump wins there are going to be a lot of very red faced pollsters, as if Trump loses the NV by half those numbers he isn't going to win the EV so if he does win some pollsters will have got it very very wrong.
I think red faces is a big understatement.
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
Polls have got considerably more accurate over the years since Truman/Dewey and their recent 'failures' are more in the mind than in fact, as regulars here know very well. Nevertheless for Donald to retain the Presidency from 7 or more points down would indicate a polling error of unprecedented proportions. (I think the first Obama win was their worst effort in recent times and that was only out by about 3%.)
It would therefore indeed be a complete disaster from the industry.
That is true.
Which is why it was interesting to see Nate Silver say Trump could only win now via fraud. His business is absolutely screwed if he gets this one wrong. For most of the other polling companies, political polling is not profitable and they do it more for the publicity side.
Not sure why NS would even say that, seems odd, since he's still giving Trump more than a 10% chance in his projection. so clearly fraud isn't the only way. What is more worrying is how openly and for some time now Trump has talked about 'fraud', So if anyone is preparing the ground for this, to me its Trump. 45% or whatever the Trump base is fired up , and screaming 'fraud' is quite a scary thought.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
No as I have never said Biden could not win
Strawman.
Point is, if Biden wins BIG you will have been proved to be an irrational, know nothing blowhard.
You do accept that, one presumes?
No, otherwise I would have got GE19 wrong too, it would just mean you cannot win them all and nothing wrong with that
No you see this is, forgive me, complete rubbish.
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. And that, I'm afraid, sums up your method.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day sums up the attitude of every poster who backed labour in 2010, Miliband in 2015, remain in 2016, and a hung parliament in 2019. And Scottish independence.
And I believe there are many well respected posters on this site behind all those.
YOu have zero right to try to silence a poster on one polling miss that has not even happened yet.
a) I don't think Mysticrose was trying to silence HYUFD and it wouldn't work anyway and I don't think anyone would want that as HYUFD is a valued poster.
b) What is wrong with putting the broken clock argument forward? The who point of it is you can get the right answer, while being completely wrong in your methodology. A crystal ball reader will guess the right answer, it doesn't mean if they do they are actually talking to the dead.
c) Most posters on here do follow logical processes, but it is on event that haven't happened so they will get it wrong sometimes and often.
YOu seem to be implying that there is a logical and correct approach to betting on elections that can still get the result spectacularly wrong.
I'll admit, my own approach to 2020 has been firstly gut instinct and partly my own experience based on US business trips. But I have since tried to find logical explanations for what were admittedly emotional responses first up.
Re your first sentence - Yes of course.
Otherwise those taking a logical and correct approach would always win which is patently nonsense.
Your 2nd sentence seems to imply you do that as well (be logical). Even the bit you describe as gut instinct is based upon something (experience, common sense, observation).
There is no merit in disagreeing with the results of a poll without a very good reason. I think there's evidence republicans really are very difficult to poll in the current climate, but they are out there.
I think that's backed up by the registered Republican early in person vote numbers in states like Florida and Nevada. The dem advantage from mail in is being shredded daily.
But of course nobody knows how any of these people voted, and there are plenty of indie early votes, too.
Re shy Republicans - I have no idea.
Re the polls I don't have any knowledge about the accuracy of any of them other than what has been said here, with the exception of Trafalgar. Following RCS1000 and Alistair's comments I did look into some of it. RCS1000 comments were logical. I checked Alistair's observations and they were accurate. Worth also reading the article Philip linked to today.
I find it difficult to believe they are entirely bogus, but there is definitely something very odd going on there.
HYUFD's reliance on them seems to be entirely based upon they got it right last time. Hence people putting forward the stopped clock argument.
And they might get it right again, but will it be through skill or luck.
If you look at what is happening on the ground and where you have data at a granular level to be able to see the voting registration patterns, it is clear the Republicans are turning up in droves. That is the case in FL, NC and NV.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Plenty of Billy bobs in WI, MI and PA too. And MN.
It does boil down to this. Are the polls missing 8 million BillyBobs who will turn out for Trump. If they are it will be a close election.
That's my view. Like 2016, they will be under-represented again in the polling. Plus lower Black / Hispanic turnout
Pollsters under representing the non politically engaged?
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Obviously a good poll for Labour with the Tories on their lowest vote share since mid- 2019.Were Labour to maintain this position, I would expect a significant recovery for the party in Scotland as voters see a real prospect of the Tories being ousted.
Doesn't work very well. You need to allow for the fact that a lot of Scots have come to regard Labour as Tory Lite since 2014 (helping the Tories) and 2017 (ditto re Brexit, certainly the party leadership then), and as the SNP are more or less following Labour-type social democratic policies otherwise (or in advance of them, usually). And the other ones tend to vote proper full fat Tory or BXP anyway.
In 2019 a certain poster claimed that Scottish voters wouldn't forgive the SNP for railroading Labour into an unpropitious GE. Surely the EssEnnPee performing the worst betrayal of Labour since 1979 is not going to be forgotten by the punters in a hurry?
Why are you in so much denial about the possibility of an outcome which you might not like? It merely demonstrates the lack of perspective in all your posts. I do not particularly want a Labour government, but I accept that because the complete lack of leadership ability in Boris Johnson that is highly likely. To me it seems common sense that a resurgent Labour Party in England and Wales will change things in Scotland. Not necessarily over night, or necessarily with certainty, but it has to be a very likely possibility. The best hope for those of you that want Scottish Independence is a continuation of Bozo and Cummings in Downing Street.
You're 'labouring' (ho, ho) under the misapprehension that you have something other than clichés and well masticated memes that have been floating about for years to offer on this subject. Please disabuse yourself of that notion.
Er, no, I was just commenting on the massively blinkered nature of all your posts, although they are a little (only a little) more eloquent than Malcolmg (not a high bar!). I am not expecting you to admit that Scots Nationalism is a nasty malicious backward looking creed that really bases its support on a hatred of another nationality (the English), even though such an admission might add a little credibility. The fact that you, and the other prejudiced Scots Nats that post on here seem to believe that unless one is Scottish then a person does not have a right to offer an opinion on anything north of the border. A position which aside from its abject stupidity is borderline racist.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Did you oppose devolution in similar terms to these?
But what is the error in their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
Heh.
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%) 2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%) 3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Waves hands.....
1 - but *something* wrong 2 - yes 3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Although I think the government were stupid for coming up with this nonsense airbridge idea, I also think there has to be some wider collective blame that the public decided as you say that going on a foreign holiday was something they couldn't sacrifice and many while there didn't employ social distancing etc. Again, I think it comes down to this weird belief that outside in the warmth, gotta be safe right.
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
Tell me about it. Betfred once put me through extensive credit and identity tests before allowing me to place bets. Took many hours over a week or so. I had three bets before they barred me. [No they were not particularly profitable bets, they could just tell from the pattern that I knew what I was doing.]
OK - how conspiracist and Machiavellian can we get with this news story - 2 counties in PA both of which voted 2:1 for Trump in 2016 are missing thousands of mailed out ballots:
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
Note that a ballot printing company in Ohio (which for a time was flying a Trumpsky flag on top of its plant) failed to deliver in a timely manner as contracted MANY absentee ballots to county election departments in Ohio AND Pennsylvania. Do NOT know if Butler Co was one of them, but would NOT be surprised.
Problem with dirty tricks such as voter suppression, is that they can and frequently do boomerang.
Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire. 7/1
I've backed this and covered my stake backing Democrats to win Florida. So I'm left with a bet at approx 3/1 for Democrats to win Mi, Wi, Pa, Az and NH. Not saying it's an odds on shot but happy with those odds.
Don't have a PP account [they don't like me] but if I did I'd snap that one up. I reckon it's about evens Biden wins Mi/Wi/Pa/Az/NH so you are getting pretty good odds on Trump winning Florida for which he is a justifiable favorite.
Yes, that`s exactly how I see it. 7/1 us a great price. They only let me put £43 on though. I`d have bet a couple of hundred if allowed. What is it with bookies limiting stakes? Laddys only allowed be a miserly £7 on a bet yesterday.
Some of these firms have no more right to call themselves bookies than Trafalgar has to call itself a pollster.
It should be a license condition that any market is available to return (at least) £100 to everyone.
I believe a similar condition has been imposed in Australia. Seems entirely reasonable to me. If a bookmaker can ban someone for no other reason than that they win too often, you can't really call it gambling. It is obtaining money by false pretences and should be illegal.
I don't mind being limited to peanuts (a badge of pride) but I hate finding out the hard way. For me Bookies should be required to display the maximum they will allow you at those odds before you stake anything.
I think Paddy Power do that don't they? bet365 do too, but I have heard that checking of the "bet max" on their site is monitored, and leads to restrictions in itself!!
Comments
The credibility of the entire industry will be completely shot. America, and maybe other countries too, are becoming more and more resistant to polling, in my view.
When you look at no-platforming, twitter climb ons, work place diversity training etc. it would only be astonishing if it were not that way.
Speak to a random stranger who called you about your political opinions in the current climate?
Hardly.
Ballotbox? absolutely.
Some western states conduct 100% by-mail elections these days and have done for some time. They all provide drop-off locations and a limited number of in-person on-the-day polling places. They're almost all heavily blue (OR, WA, HI) or red (UT) though, with only CO being a bit swingy.
Even the MPs who put him there were correct about that.
Trump also leads narrowly with 45-64s now and with over 65s, however Biden has a big 55.7% to 39.1% lead with 18 to 44s
https://www.investors.com/politics/biden-vs-trump-ibd-tipp-presidential-election-tracking-poll-2020/
I'm not sure viruses are literate, though.
It is also clear if you look at the data from places like NC that the Black vote is not turning out and the supposed tsunami of younger voters isn't either (the latter probably impacted by many colleges using remote learning so GOTV operations are hard).
OTOH, looking at the patterns coming out of rural Nevada, it is clear that Billy Bob is turning out in droves (although unclear yet whether it will overcome Clark; there is a chance it will).
Now independents may split heavily for Biden but one explanation for what we are actually seeing and the polls is that the latter have screwed up
Which means Biden must be doing extremely well with whites. Unless you are over polling urban whites happy to talk about voting democrat that is.....
Based on this, I'm increasingly of the view NC stays Red. Interested in PBers counter-arguments.
My main points would be:
1. GOP has narrowed the EV gap again with the Democrats by 2pp rounded to 6%. The gap between Dem and Rep EV is now far lower than it was in 2016;
2. The Black vote is 19% of the EV vs 22% of the electorate. It could come out in droves on voting day but you need a massive reversal of trend, especially given the number who have voted;
3. <40 voters massively under represented in EV - 26% vs 36/7% of electorate.
I'd also back Tillis to beat Cunningham
https://twitter.com/OldNorthStPol/status/1322159331085869059
Remember also - Labour made lots of promises in 2014 and were even harder than the Tories in stamping them out as seen in the post-referendum Scotland Act revisions. Devomax has been promised before, notably by one G. Brown who promised Scots they'd get more devolution than anywhere else in the world, or words to that effect.
When does the government put up the white flag?
It's far more likely to happen as a result of shenanigans with the [non]-counting of votes and other interference with the election process.
Trump has already told you that he regards votes against him as fraudulent. If he can find a way to dump those votes he won't hesitate.
Hope that helps.
(Spoiler - it doesn't help make it all go away)
Whilst important, it isn't always the clincher.
The disadvantages of incumbency during post pandemic world economic turmoil.
I have used it to extensively review my own previous predictions on here.
I have a couple of absolute stinkers.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/523426-positive-trump-polls-spark-polling-circle-debate
It would therefore indeed be a complete disater from the industry.
I was most surprised to read that Roland Leotard's reply consisted of mumble, mumble, mumble.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1322172304332382210?s=20
The dynamics are of course quite different for the Holyrood elections, but will SKS have come to a clear position on indy which people will - crucially - believe? In that respect he would need to keep the SLAB types under control. Who would go berserk, most of them, at anything less than full patriotic Britishness. Which brings me to the
other issue with Scottish Labour is that there is an unresolved contradiction. It's supposed to be but isn't really a standalone organization (the electoral law had to be fiddled by Labour to allow it to call itself 'Scottish Labour'). So the leader is in a difficult position vis a vis the head honcho in London. Yet, again, if the h. h. SKS orders him about, the SLAB leader can invoke his position, pretendy as it may be, to defy SKS (bit like the Scottish Tory leader is pretending to be independent of London and criticise it at the moment). Not sure where that leaves the Labour Party, especially as Mr Leonard has seen off his challengers for the foreseeable future (which surprised me,and which says a great deal about the challengers).
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
When you have done that
But what is the error in your estimate of your estimate of the error their estimate of the false positives?
etc
It's Turtles All The Way Down
to within 0.005%
There has been very little sign of this over the last few months, unlike the ups and downs in the Clinton/Trump NV race which even included an occasional Trump lead and with Clinton sinking in the last week,, Biden has remained consistently around 7% or more most of the time.
So IF Trump wins the EV the national polls will have been wildly out as well as the state ones this time, so the polling companies will have pretty much no credibility. (well except for Trafalgar and Rasmussen, the new gold standards!!).
It's largely because of this consistency in Bidens NV lead as opposed to Clintons up and down polling in 2016 that i believe Biden will win, though I do think Trump will be closer than some think.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics/pennsylvania-butler-county-ballots/index.html
Is this an innocent but important USPS error? Are the Dems up to no good? Are Trump's friends doing dark groundwork to set up a challenge to the overall result?
Even if they totally ignore that, they've got to somehow get around:
1 - What was the FPR in August? (Answer - very likely under 0.15%, certainly under 0.3%)
2 - What FPR could make a significant difference right now? (Answer - you'd need it to be around 10-15%)
3 - How do you handwave a 100x worsening in FPR? (Especially given that we've never come that close to testing capacity)
And then, of course, how is it that all these false positives are turning up in hospital?
Emphasis added.
I hope someone responds to you as I would like to see a counter argument.
Of course you have carried out proper analysis there and are not relying on a pollster just cos they got it right last time.
Which is why it was interesting to see Nate Silver say Trump could only win now via fraud. His business is absolutely screwed if he gets this one wrong. For most of the other polling companies, political polling is not profitable and they do it more for the publicity side.
After the last survey suggested cases, while rising, had started to level off, the latest results suggest it is onwards and upwards for Covid-19!
The most striking figure is that it estimates 1% of people in England had Covid-19 over the period in question. People discuss the rate at which cases are doubling might slow, but at current levels we really can't afford any more doublings at all.
Clearly the current restrictions aren't getting R below 1 when combined with schools and universities being open, so it seems a continuation of the trend is inevitable. I'm not sure there is the political will (or willingness among the wider population) for another lockdown, but in the absence of that the current halfway house of Tier 2/3 restrictions look likely to continue indefinitely.
1. Republican incumbent who lost the popular vote in the previous election.
2. Republican incumbent who provokes derision from opposition, and incomprehension that anyone would support him - e.g. "misunderestimate", "Stupid White Men", etc.
3. Major external crisis, which proves divisive.
4. Increase in voter turnout.
In 2004 the increase in turnout delivered Bush II a popular vote victory by 50.7% - 48.3%
In particular, (2) is the element that is used today as reason to suspect that the polls won't pick up support for the Republican incumbent, since Liberals are so intolerant of support for that President. So how did polling do in 2004?
Well, to pick the first example from my Google search, the final Pew Research Center poll predicted 51 - 48 against Kerry.
So, opinion polls are capable of detecting an increase in turnout that would favour a Republican incumbent who faces a hostile liberal media and "polite society" opinion.
It's not impossible that it happens, but I think a major mismatch between polling and official results should be regarded as prima facie evidence of election fraud, rather than opinion poll defect.
Anyone putting their mail in the ballot anywhere except the west coast states would have to be living under a rock at this point tbh now. Main thing is they get the ballots.
The reality remains that support for parties is febrile, and support for parties and ideas (such as independence) changes with circumstance. That is not a masticated meme or a cliché, it is a fact that clearly troubles your very narrow mind.
Second I doubt that the personality of the SLab leader matters as much as you imply.Certainly it has significance for Holyrood - but far fewer turn out for that election anyway, which in itself is an indication that Westminster elections are viewed as more important to Scottish voters and accordingly treated more seriously.
And if you accept the need for extra restrictions in (say) a month's time, is it really worth trying to stagger on until then?
45% or whatever the Trump base is fired up , and screaming 'fraud' is quite a scary thought.
1 - but *something* wrong
2 - yes
3 - But Dido, Cummings, Lab chaos etc means "that it is perfectly possible all the tests are done wrong, now"
It's about what people *want* to believe. The data is interfering with peoples lives....
We have people saying "I want to go on holiday - i need to go."
I said "I want to go on holiday. But sitting next to strangers for x hours is not a good idea. So I won't"
Like you, I decided that wasn't a wise move and enjoyed the summer in my garden and some walks in the countryside.
Problem with dirty tricks such as voter suppression, is that they can and frequently do boomerang.
PB's "shy" Trumpers are not so bashful today.