If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
https://cnalysis.com/articles/our-final-forecast-state-legislatures ...In our final state legislative forecast, we have Democrats favored to flip 6 state legislative chambers: the Minnesota Senate, the Arizona House, the Arizona Senate, the Iowa House, the Michigan House, and the Texas House, in that order of likelihood. Republicans, meanwhile, are favored to flip the Alaska House.
The most competitive chambers on Tuesday (in a Tilt column) are in the states of Iowa, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, all critical swing states in the Electoral College.
Nationwide, Democrats are favored to have a net gain of 123 single-member state legislative districts in our forecast: a net gain of 77 seats in the lower chambers and 46 seats in the upper chambers. When including multi member districts, it is likely that this number will be slightly higher due to the amount of multi-member districts in Vermont and New Hampshire where it appears Democrats will make gains. Democrats are also likely to make gains in Arizona’s entirely multi-member-district lower chamber. Republicans may net a few seats in the multi-member district chambers in West Virginia, North Dakota and South Dakota, but not enough to cancel out the seats that Democrats will likely gain in New England and Arizona...
So 923 people died per 100k in Oct 17-Sep 18, 880 per 100k in the next 12 months, and 990 per 100k in the last 12
If we were talking about anything else people would surely say this year is a regression to the mean (assuming 923 was pretty normal, it is actually a little bit higher than the previous few years)
We didn't throw street parties to celebrate the 880, the extra months of life that people who would usually have died in that period, yet any mention that this year might be a correction of that low is treated as if it were heresy. I don't get why
(aka invitation for people to show off how clever they think they are)
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
Two households will be able to form a bubble in Wales after the firebreak lockdown ends on 9 November, First Minister Mark Drakeford said.
There will be no travel restrictions in Wales, but people will not be able to leave the country without a reasonable excuse during the English lockdown. Groups of 15 will be allowed to meet indoors, and groups of 30 outdoors.
15 people...15.....indoors....that seems more unwise than banning Tesco's from selling oven gloves. And 30 outdoors, that just prime for gangs of youth to congregate.
It is totally reckless on those numbers. And way too soon for that level of relaxation.
Apologies for half remembering but you are in Spain are you not? And are you retired?
No need to apologise. Yes and yes. Very aware of how dangerous the summer relaxation was here - which we are now paying heavily for.
Thx. I think in general the demographic that wants to be able to meet 30 of its peers is not the demographic that is, say, a typical PB contributor where many have many years ago been 20yrs old and partied like it was 1999 (or, for some, partied because it was 1999) and I am wary therefore of those of us on here who advocate severe lockdowns for today's 20-yr olds.
Even though I don't agree with the need for this new lockdown, we're going to get it. What I don't see from the government or any supporters of this new lockdown are proposals to use this time to fix the testing and isolation system. I don't see what will have changed on the 2nd of December, the virus isn't going to have magically gone away by then and we're going to have the same deficiencies in our testing and isolation system.
Does anyone know if any proposals have come from the government, what they are and what, other than broad "fix it" demands, proposals are coming from the opposition who are voting in favour of it?
So far I have seen nothing, no single or solid proposal from anyone near the levers of power on fixing testing or isolation. None of the politicians, scientists or academics have made any suggestions on what can be improved or how.
We've got this lockdown, lets at least bloody use this time productively and put measures in place to increase isolation rates and get door knocking testing in place for contact tracing. We'll be back to where we are now 2-3 weeks after the 2nd of December if nothing changes with isolation and testing and the demands for renewed lockdown will come back from the same politicians and scientists who have made no effort to actually fix the issues with testing, isolation and contact tracing.
Something like this MIT AI cough-down-the-phone test looks promising, if HMG can get behind it as a rapid screening tool. Apparently Covid alters the way you cough. https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/31/ai_covid_cough/
If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
As I noted, we know Trump has better voter efficiency in the EC, but he needs a lot more than just Florida. And, for the CBS numbers to be right, Indies who have already voted must have broken very heavily for Biden, as polling in general suggests.
FWIW, I think Florida is Trump's best chance for resisting the blue wave. I don't think he can do it in AZ, NH, MI, WI, PA, NC or GA (or the two districts in ME and NE), and might not even in TX and OH. So FL won't really matter.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
He said that suburban women are drifting back to Trump, not because they like him (they really don;'t), but because they dislike their kids not going to school more.
I thought that sentence was going to end with something about Rohypnol!
He's worth between 18 and 40 million Euro according to what I can see so whilst he can well afford to lose it it's a good sized bet still.
He is an incredibly smart long time gambler and had owned betting sites, he won't have stuck up 1/18 of his life roll. Like a lot of people around the poker world, many got in very early on bitcoin and also amassed huge amounts in that.
Is 1/18th really that crazy? I don't really know how you'd calculate it - but it's a market where he always has the option to partially cash out right up until the day. It's also not that hard to make covering bets to limit risk.
1/18 of your alleged life wealth....not gambling roll. And you use the Kelly Criterion.
I suggest he is wealthier than 18 million euro. He (used to) plays in massive poker games for fun, where pots regularly reach $100ks.
Thanks - this criterion is new to me. I might be misapplying it - but if the odds of winning his bet are 90% (538 model) and he is getting odds of 1.5... then you should put 70% of your betting funds on it?
I just did a quick back of the envelope on FLorida. 1.5 million ED votes, follow same pattern as IPEV. GOP + 250k votes over Democrats. 10% lead amongst NPA for Biden (Not an overly wild assumption) = ~ 50,000 vote win for Biden.
Even though I don't agree with the need for this new lockdown, we're going to get it. What I don't see from the government or any supporters of this new lockdown are proposals to use this time to fix the testing and isolation system. I don't see what will have changed on the 2nd of December, the virus isn't going to have magically gone away by then and we're going to have the same deficiencies in our testing and isolation system.
Does anyone know if any proposals have come from the government, what they are and what, other than broad "fix it" demands, proposals are coming from the opposition who are voting in favour of it?
So far I have seen nothing, no single or solid proposal from anyone near the levers of power on fixing testing or isolation. None of the politicians, scientists or academics have made any suggestions on what can be improved or how.
We've got this lockdown, lets at least bloody use this time productively and put measures in place to increase isolation rates and get door knocking testing in place for contact tracing. We'll be back to where we are now 2-3 weeks after the 2nd of December if nothing changes with isolation and testing and the demands for renewed lockdown will come back from the same politicians and scientists who have made no effort to actually fix the issues with testing, isolation and contact tracing.
The thinking (such that it is) must be that every new lockdown as you say does diddly squit to take us forward in terms of t&t but does bring us closer to a vaccine. And hence the sheer passage of time will eventually bring us to a point whereby people can get vaccinated and society might be able to move on.
At which point people will forget or ignore the year or so that restrictions were in place. They will ignore that the t&t program was a farce. And they will remember, the govt hopes, that BoJo et al got us through it all.
There appears as you say to be no other possible rationale to try something that demonstrably failed last time round and is being conducted in worse overall conditions (ie winter).
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
Here's one. If GOP enthusiasm was way above the Democrats wouldn't we expect them to have a considerably greater % of their mail in ballots returned ?
Not if they've bought into Trump's nonsense about mail-in ballots and his "if we win the day, we've won the election and counting mail-in ballots is cheating" crap.
I am constantly amazed by the power of conspiracy theories and alternative facts. Researching for a presentation on Infection Control of CCHF, I was looking on the web for good graphics about Germ Theory and came across a bunch of stuff about how Germ Theory is wrong, bugs don't cause disease, and all we need to do in order to not get ill is to eat right and boost our immune system!!!
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
On those numbers, Trump could - conceivably - edge it in the Electoral College - but it would be a long shot.
Clinton won by 2.1% last time so it would be a swing of 0.55% to Biden since 2016, on UNS Biden would win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to scrape an EC win, Trump would hold all his other 2016 states
He's worth between 18 and 40 million Euro according to what I can see so whilst he can well afford to lose it it's a good sized bet still.
He is an incredibly smart long time gambler and had owned betting sites, he won't have stuck up 1/18 of his life roll. Like a lot of people around the poker world, many got in very early on bitcoin and also amassed huge amounts in that.
Is 1/18th really that crazy? I don't really know how you'd calculate it - but it's a market where he always has the option to partially cash out right up until the day. It's also not that hard to make covering bets to limit risk.
1/18 of your alleged life wealth....not gambling roll. And you use the Kelly Criterion.
I suggest he is wealthier than 18 million euro. He (used to) plays in massive poker games for fun, where pots regularly reach $100ks.
Thanks - this criterion is new to me. I might be misapplying it - but if the odds of winning his bet are 90% (538 model) and he is getting odds of 1.5... then you should put 70% of your betting funds on it?
Yes but in practice, because the "true odds" are rarely known with 100% confidence (the 90% on the 538 model is not quite the same as 1/6 on a fair die) people often use a half or quarter or some other fraction of the Kelly recommendation. This also reduces volatility.
If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
Leads 100k by registration, but there are 2m unaffiliated already in as well. So say 1.5m day-of goes GOP 2:1 that's plus 500k, and Biden needs the unaffiliateds to net him 400k, eg break for him 1.2m:0.8m or 3:2, which sounds very plausible but not certain. That's not counting crossovers in the mail vote, which the polling says will be more GOP->Dem than Dem->GOP.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
Leads 100k by registration, but there are 2m unaffiliated already in as well. So say 1.5m day-of goes GOP 2:1 that's plus 500k, and Biden needs the unaffiliateds to net him 400k, eg break for him 1.2m:0.8m or 3:2, which sounds very plausible but not certain. That's not counting crossovers in the mail vote, which the polling says will be more GOP->Dem than Dem->GOP.
Seems pretty wide open to me.
That's pretty much where I am - not in either's column, way too close to call in FL.
Labour seem to want to focus on Rishi as he may succeed Boris sooner than later
Also notice Starmer did not reference his 8% proposed corporation tax increase to the CBI
It's a possibility, though it seems like a decent attack line anyway.
Rishi is about the only senior Conservative with a good public image right now. Partly, he does seem genuinely good for a young'un, partly because his shiny image is still shiny (though I can see him becoming more than faintly absurd if he keeps the Insta-vibe going much longer). But mostly because, he hosed money around like a drunken sailor. The right thing to do, but also easy popularity.
But was that the real Rishi? He is, after all, a rich man who worked for a hedge fund. The government has been considerably less generous during the time of tiers. I don't think he's denied that he doesn't like the cost of Lockdown 2. If the opposition can convert Dishy Rishi into Stingy Sunak in the public's mind, that seems worth their while.
All political parties have members who are good people and members who are not. Rishi stands out from so many of current front line Tories because he is a decent human being. Yes he's a Conservative and is having to filter events through that world view. But he has thrown caution to the wind and thrown oceans of cash at people in ways that were almost inconceivable for a Tory chancellor to do.
Absolutely. Rishi is an impressive politician, decent human, firmly in a part of the Conservative tradition. Furlough was a huge achievement.
But since than, there have been definite missteps by the government, mostly quibbling over tiny amounts of cash- FSM and Tier 3 funding for example. The government does seem to have overdone "back to normal" in a way that has Treasury fingerprints all over it. If Rishi did try to avoid or delay Lockdown 2, that might be costly in lives and money.
Rishi is good politician and a good person. But not above criticism.
He comes across well, but the kind of aggressive hedge funds he made his money with don't suggest he's not the most moral person around.
Perhaps that's why he decides to stop working for them and go into politics? Also, not all the hedge funds he worked for are quite like. The Children's Investment Fund Management which was run by one the UK most generous philanthropists.
He’s enough money to go and play at politics, more fun, social acceptability, chance to play with the big boys. Can’t imagine he has a plan to give something back and there is always the opportunity to accidentally drop info at the dinner table when his FiL is around.
How do you know he doesn't want to give back. I think most MPs enter politics exactly for that reason, give back and make a difference, especially people who have made money outside. There are loads of easier, less stressful and more "socially acceptable" ways to take your money and spend time getting to look like a good guy, without any of the downsides.
Indeed, Rishi Sunak is a very able guy, has a first class degree from Oxford and a Stanford MBA, made a lot of money in the City and has even more family money given his father in law is an Indian billionaire, he could have had an easy life of luxury without the hassle of politics but has chosen to perform public service.
He is not just a career politician
What you are saying is that he has an absolutely massive conflict of interest right there. Not necessarily intentional but he cannot escape it. One could argue that Mr Sunak is the last person in the world who should be CotE.
So 923 people died per 100k in Oct 17-Sep 18, 880 per 100k in the next 12 months, and 990 per 100k in the last 12
If we were talking about anything else people would surely say this year is a regression to the mean (assuming 923 was pretty normal, it is actually a little bit higher than the previous few years)
We didn't throw street parties to celebrate the 880, the extra months of life that people who would usually have died in that period, yet any mention that this year might be a correction of that low is treated as if it were heresy. I don't get why
(aka invitation for people to show off how clever they think they are)
Yes. The peak was short, and now we're on the way back. The equivalent annualised number for April alone was over 2,000.
Summary of eve-of-poll forecast models. I've added a couple of lines at the bottom for those models where I can't get the full ECV probability distribution.
Other models DDHQ LeanTossup New Statesman ASI ------------------------------------------------------------------- Probability of Biden win 87% 96% 90% N/A Biden ECVs: 317 384 338 367
NB Full ECV probability distribution not available for these models. Unclear whether headline ECV figures are mean or expected value.
If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
Leads 100k by registration, but there are 2m unaffiliated already in as well. So say 1.5m day-of goes GOP 2:1 that's plus 500k, and Biden needs the unaffiliateds to net him 400k, eg break for him 1.2m:0.8m or 3:2, which sounds very plausible but not certain. That's not counting crossovers in the mail vote, which the polling says will be more GOP->Dem than Dem->GOP.
Seems pretty wide open to me.
That's pretty much where I am - not in either's column, way too close to call in FL.
As I have bet on Trump in Florida I have it firmly in the red column.
He's worth between 18 and 40 million Euro according to what I can see so whilst he can well afford to lose it it's a good sized bet still.
He is an incredibly smart long time gambler and had owned betting sites, he won't have stuck up 1/18 of his life roll. Like a lot of people around the poker world, many got in very early on bitcoin and also amassed huge amounts in that.
Is 1/18th really that crazy? I don't really know how you'd calculate it - but it's a market where he always has the option to partially cash out right up until the day. It's also not that hard to make covering bets to limit risk.
1/18 of your alleged life wealth....not gambling roll. And you use the Kelly Criterion.
I suggest he is wealthier than 18 million euro. He (used to) plays in massive poker games for fun, where pots regularly reach $100ks.
Thanks - this criterion is new to me. I might be misapplying it - but if the odds of winning his bet are 90% (538 model) and he is getting odds of 1.5... then you should put 70% of your betting funds on it?
Yes but in practice, because the "true odds" are rarely known with 100% confidence (the 90% on the 538 model is not quite the same as 1/6 on a fair die) people often use a half or quarter or some other fraction of the Kelly recommendation. This also reduces volatility.
Fair enough. Still - putting 5.6% of your net worth down is probably still a bit conservative I'd argue. Particularly if you're a multi-millionaire...
CBS has Trump winning 279 to 259 if there is a surge of Trump voters on the day, Biden wins 375 to 163 if early voters dominate and otherwise it is Biden 279 and Trump 163 and 96 toss ups
Shoudn't we be basing projections only on Trafalgar?
Trafalgar does mass polls aimed at identifying Trump voters others miss, especially in rural areas and who are otherwise politically disengaged
By "polling" do you really mean guessing.
They are all guessing. The cleverer pollsters are admitting the problems they are all having getting republicans to talk about their opinions in swing states.
The rest are lying.
Why do you say they are all guessing? They are polling (at least the credible ones). They might not get it right but they are not guessing; they are using mathematics.
When you say the clever pollsters are admitting the problems in getting Republican voters to talk what evidence do you have for this? if such a phenomena existed before they will have built it in to their sampling. If it is new or has changed they will not know until afterwards when they get it wrong and analyze why.
Even though I don't agree with the need for this new lockdown, we're going to get it. What I don't see from the government or any supporters of this new lockdown are proposals to use this time to fix the testing and isolation system. I don't see what will have changed on the 2nd of December, the virus isn't going to have magically gone away by then and we're going to have the same deficiencies in our testing and isolation system.
Does anyone know if any proposals have come from the government, what they are and what, other than broad "fix it" demands, proposals are coming from the opposition who are voting in favour of it?
So far I have seen nothing, no single or solid proposal from anyone near the levers of power on fixing testing or isolation. None of the politicians, scientists or academics have made any suggestions on what can be improved or how.
We've got this lockdown, lets at least bloody use this time productively and put measures in place to increase isolation rates and get door knocking testing in place for contact tracing. We'll be back to where we are now 2-3 weeks after the 2nd of December if nothing changes with isolation and testing and the demands for renewed lockdown will come back from the same politicians and scientists who have made no effort to actually fix the issues with testing, isolation and contact tracing.
The thinking (such that it is) must be that every new lockdown as you say does diddly squit to take us forward in terms of t&t but does bring us closer to a vaccine. And hence the sheer passage of time will eventually bring us to a point whereby people can get vaccinated and society might be able to move on.
At which point people will forget or ignore the year or so that restrictions were in place. They will ignore that the t&t program was a farce. And they will remember, the govt hopes, that BoJo et al got us through it all.
There appears as you say to be no other possible rationale to try something that demonstrably failed last time round and is being conducted in worse overall conditions (ie winter).
Which is why the government's worst mistake of the last week is to fail to face reality and admit there will almost certainly be lockdown(s) in 2021. Had they done that, they could have set provisional dates for such lockdowns, cut off the damaging confusion - including among themselves - about whether or not this lockdown will definitely end on 2nd December, and at least enabled people to plan.
By the way, I'm also disappointed that Starmer didn't push for this, instead saying that the lockdown shouldn't end before current problems are fixed (R; test and trace).
Merkel: “Throughout the winter months, we will have to limit private contacts,” she told a news conference. “The light at the end of the tunnel is still quite a long way off.”
Merkel: “Throughout the winter months, we will have to limit private contacts,” she told a news conference. “The light at the end of the tunnel is still quite a long way off.”
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
On those numbers, Trump could - conceivably - edge it in the Electoral College - but it would be a long shot.
Clinton won by 2.1% last time so it would be a swing of 0.55% to Biden since 2016, on UNS Biden would win Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to scrape an EC win, Trump would hold all his other 2016 states
I don't think anyone here (or perhaps only a few) don't think its possible Trump could sneak a win in the way you have suggested. There was no way with the way the EC system works that Trump would end up with no chance. 10-15% sound about right to me which is about half what 538 projected 4 years ago
So he needs things to go his way even more than then and my feeling is with turnout clearly up this time, more of those are going to be voting Biden than Trump. When you factor in the pandemic and how he has reacted to that, his chances are very slim though not impossible.
CBS has Trump winning 279 to 259 if there is a surge of Trump voters on the day, Biden wins 375 to 163 if early voters dominate and otherwise it is Biden 279 and Trump 163 and 96 toss ups
Shoudn't we be basing projections only on Trafalgar?
Trafalgar does mass polls aimed at identifying Trump voters others miss, especially in rural areas and who are otherwise politically disengaged
By "polling" do you really mean guessing.
They are all guessing. The cleverer pollsters are admitting the problems they are all having getting republicans to talk about their opinions in swing states.
The rest are lying.
Why do you say they are all guessing? They are polling (at least the credible ones). They might not get it right but they are not guessing; they are using mathematics.
When you say the clever pollsters are admitting the problems in getting Republican voters to talk what evidence do you have for this? if such a phenomena existed before they will have built it in to their sampling. If it is new or has changed they will not know until afterwards when they get it wrong and analyze why.
The evidence I have is that is often listen to a two-hour broadcast by a US pollster who says just this. Republicans are extremely difficult to poll and those competitors who have big polling leads for the dems do not even try.
Even if you are a republican leaning pollster using multi-modes of contact its difficult to get enough repubs for a proper sample given registrations. For a democrat-leaning pollster, using graduate entry labour and phone only polls, its next to impossible.
Check out where they poll in a given state (the cities). check out who they poll (university graduates, and that's when they even bother to sift for education).
The left's demonisation and in a few cases persecution of republican views has driven them underground. The dems have no idea how many there are, where they are and how many are going to vote.
Note she takes into account Kamala Harris alongside Joe Biden, which immediately gives her more credibility than Trafalgar or Nate "put your mortgage on Brazil for the World Cup" Silver.
So, lets take the crudest of crude estimates to try to find a sanity check: if all 95 million early votes have indeed been cast and it is 2/3 : 1/3 Biden:Trump then C 62 million have so have voted Biden and c 31m for Trump. If all of the remaining 62 million (of the 157m) vote and the split is exactly reversed: 1/3: 2/3 Biden : Trump then it ends Biden: Trump C82 million : c72 million or c53% : c46%.
With a c 3 million deficit Trump was able to finagle the EC in 2016. In 2020 with a c10 million deficit? TBH I really see no realistic way he can win the EC on those numbers. The differential t/o OTD is unlikely to be anything like the numbers required to turn around the Trump deficit in the record number of early votes.
More to the point, as Mike points out in the header, the efficiency of the GOP operation would have to be an order of magnitude ahead of anything we have seen this campaign.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests Trump has simply not recovered enough to even get close. The Dems have been fired up and the GOP has actually lost a chunk of voters since 2016 (2018 and Lincoln project confirms)
So, I´m thinking my Biden bets are pretty safe. In fact there is still a significant chance of a Biden landslide, though TBH I´d settle for the 7 point margin that these crude numbers suggest.
Labour seem to want to focus on Rishi as he may succeed Boris sooner than later
Also notice Starmer did not reference his 8% proposed corporation tax increase to the CBI
It's a possibility, though it seems like a decent attack line anyway.
Rishi is about the only senior Conservative with a good public image right now. Partly, he does seem genuinely good for a young'un, partly because his shiny image is still shiny (though I can see him becoming more than faintly absurd if he keeps the Insta-vibe going much longer). But mostly because, he hosed money around like a drunken sailor. The right thing to do, but also easy popularity.
But was that the real Rishi? He is, after all, a rich man who worked for a hedge fund. The government has been considerably less generous during the time of tiers. I don't think he's denied that he doesn't like the cost of Lockdown 2. If the opposition can convert Dishy Rishi into Stingy Sunak in the public's mind, that seems worth their while.
All political parties have members who are good people and members who are not. Rishi stands out from so many of current front line Tories because he is a decent human being. Yes he's a Conservative and is having to filter events through that world view. But he has thrown caution to the wind and thrown oceans of cash at people in ways that were almost inconceivable for a Tory chancellor to do.
Absolutely. Rishi is an impressive politician, decent human, firmly in a part of the Conservative tradition. Furlough was a huge achievement.
But since than, there have been definite missteps by the government, mostly quibbling over tiny amounts of cash- FSM and Tier 3 funding for example. The government does seem to have overdone "back to normal" in a way that has Treasury fingerprints all over it. If Rishi did try to avoid or delay Lockdown 2, that might be costly in lives and money.
Rishi is good politician and a good person. But not above criticism.
He comes across well, but the kind of aggressive hedge funds he made his money with don't suggest he's not the most moral person around.
Hedge funds didn't create the financial crisis, they spotted the weaknesses and profited from it but they didn't create the weaknesses.
Saying that a hedge fund created the financial crisis is as illiterate as suggesting the Trump will lose because people have bet against him (rather than people have bet against him because they can see he is losing).
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
Panic buyers probably exist to some extent, but their principal role is akin to that of the treacherous saboteurs who get the blame for North Korea missing its 5 year tractor production target. The system works on just-in-time restocking by consumers, and by supermarkets. It is possible for there to be an ENTIRELY VIRTUOUS shift away from that; people rightly think if they buy twice the milk and twice the pasta, that's half the highly dangerous and antisocial supermarket runs. 50 prudent milk and pasta doublers empty the shelves exactly as efficiently as one fifty-litre panic buyer.
Trump winning would be the biggest polling catastrophe since the infamous 1936 Literary Digest voodoo polling (which is how I rate Trafalgar by the way).
"Joe Biden leads President Trump by double digits nationally, USC poll suggests" LA Times headline
Now thats a bit naughty, you used the 4 way poll from IBD to point out Biden only up 3.2% and based your opinion on that. Now when someone points out the correct final poll they had (4 way) in 2016, you change and say, ah but in the head to head they got it right. So based on that , head to head Biden is 4.1% up now with them not 3.2 which makes a difference So with the type of poll they got 'right' in 2016 (2 way) they have Biden up just over 4.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
Panic buying does make sense if everyone else is panic buying. That's the trouble. If the shelves are stripped bare of toilet rolls then you have a choice of buying the last pack of Andrex now or tearing the Daily Borisgraph into small squares next week.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
I appreciate that it's not always easy to understand written English at a basic level so I will spell it out for you as you are, as evidenced by your posting on PB, extremely stupid.
I am not criticising people for panic buying. I am explaining to dickheads such as yourself that the circumstances which leads people to panic buy are now established. People will panic buy if they perceive there is a risk to supply. This happened recently in March-May and appears to be happening now, albeit in a more limited way.
Whenever anyone has advanced the idea of empty shelves on account of Brexit, complete arseholes such as yourself have said this is Project Fear.
But it has happened before and might be happening now and if you think the merest hint of supply problems come the end of the transition period will not result in it happening again then, frankly, you really need someone to put you out of your misery.
Labour seem to want to focus on Rishi as he may succeed Boris sooner than later
Also notice Starmer did not reference his 8% proposed corporation tax increase to the CBI
It's a possibility, though it seems like a decent attack line anyway.
Rishi is about the only senior Conservative with a good public image right now. Partly, he does seem genuinely good for a young'un, partly because his shiny image is still shiny (though I can see him becoming more than faintly absurd if he keeps the Insta-vibe going much longer). But mostly because, he hosed money around like a drunken sailor. The right thing to do, but also easy popularity.
But was that the real Rishi? He is, after all, a rich man who worked for a hedge fund. The government has been considerably less generous during the time of tiers. I don't think he's denied that he doesn't like the cost of Lockdown 2. If the opposition can convert Dishy Rishi into Stingy Sunak in the public's mind, that seems worth their while.
All political parties have members who are good people and members who are not. Rishi stands out from so many of current front line Tories because he is a decent human being. Yes he's a Conservative and is having to filter events through that world view. But he has thrown caution to the wind and thrown oceans of cash at people in ways that were almost inconceivable for a Tory chancellor to do.
Absolutely. Rishi is an impressive politician, decent human, firmly in a part of the Conservative tradition. Furlough was a huge achievement.
But since than, there have been definite missteps by the government, mostly quibbling over tiny amounts of cash- FSM and Tier 3 funding for example. The government does seem to have overdone "back to normal" in a way that has Treasury fingerprints all over it. If Rishi did try to avoid or delay Lockdown 2, that might be costly in lives and money.
Rishi is good politician and a good person. But not above criticism.
He comes across well, but the kind of aggressive hedge funds he made his money with don't suggest he's not the most moral person around.
Hedge funds didn't create the financial crisis, they spotted the weaknesses and profited from it but they didn't create the weaknesses.
Saying that a hedge fund created the financial crisis is as illiterate as suggesting the Trump will lose because people have bet against him (rather than people have bet against him because they can see he is losing).
Labour seem to want to focus on Rishi as he may succeed Boris sooner than later
Also notice Starmer did not reference his 8% proposed corporation tax increase to the CBI
It's a possibility, though it seems like a decent attack line anyway.
Rishi is about the only senior Conservative with a good public image right now. Partly, he does seem genuinely good for a young'un, partly because his shiny image is still shiny (though I can see him becoming more than faintly absurd if he keeps the Insta-vibe going much longer). But mostly because, he hosed money around like a drunken sailor. The right thing to do, but also easy popularity.
But was that the real Rishi? He is, after all, a rich man who worked for a hedge fund. The government has been considerably less generous during the time of tiers. I don't think he's denied that he doesn't like the cost of Lockdown 2. If the opposition can convert Dishy Rishi into Stingy Sunak in the public's mind, that seems worth their while.
All political parties have members who are good people and members who are not. Rishi stands out from so many of current front line Tories because he is a decent human being. Yes he's a Conservative and is having to filter events through that world view. But he has thrown caution to the wind and thrown oceans of cash at people in ways that were almost inconceivable for a Tory chancellor to do.
Absolutely. Rishi is an impressive politician, decent human, firmly in a part of the Conservative tradition. Furlough was a huge achievement.
But since than, there have been definite missteps by the government, mostly quibbling over tiny amounts of cash- FSM and Tier 3 funding for example. The government does seem to have overdone "back to normal" in a way that has Treasury fingerprints all over it. If Rishi did try to avoid or delay Lockdown 2, that might be costly in lives and money.
Rishi is good politician and a good person. But not above criticism.
He comes across well, but the kind of aggressive hedge funds he made his money with don't suggest he's not the most moral person around.
Hedge funds didn't create the financial crisis, they spotted the weaknesses and profited from it but they didn't create the weaknesses.
Saying that a hedge fund created the financial crisis is as illiterate as suggesting the Trump will lose because people have bet against him (rather than people have bet against him because they can see he is losing).
In a sense that's true, Philip. If we are going to go back to original causes we could probably do no better than identify Bill Clinton and the legislation that encouraged the creation of large amounts of sub-prime debt in the USA. After that I suppose you could say it was a system failure; the hedge funds and banks piled in to exploit the opportunity. It became a high-stakes game of pass the parcel in which the taxpayer was eventually left holding the package and its odious contents.
Not sure that gives the hedgefunders a pass though.
CBS has Trump winning 279 to 259 if there is a surge of Trump voters on the day, Biden wins 375 to 163 if early voters dominate and otherwise it is Biden 279 and Trump 163 and 96 toss ups
Shoudn't we be basing projections only on Trafalgar?
Trafalgar does mass polls aimed at identifying Trump voters others miss, especially in rural areas and who are otherwise politically disengaged
By "polling" do you really mean guessing.
They are all guessing. The cleverer pollsters are admitting the problems they are all having getting republicans to talk about their opinions in swing states.
The rest are lying.
Why do you say they are all guessing? They are polling (at least the credible ones). They might not get it right but they are not guessing; they are using mathematics.
When you say the clever pollsters are admitting the problems in getting Republican voters to talk what evidence do you have for this? if such a phenomena existed before they will have built it in to their sampling. If it is new or has changed they will not know until afterwards when they get it wrong and analyze why.
The evidence I have is that is often listen to a two-hour broadcast by a US pollster who says just this. Republicans are extremely difficult to poll and those competitors who have big polling leads for the dems do not even try.
Even if you are a republican leaning pollster using multi-modes of contact its difficult to get enough repubs for a proper sample given registrations. For a democrat-leaning pollster, using graduate entry labour and phone only polls, its next to impossible.
Check out where they poll in a given state (the cities). check out who they poll (university graduates, and that's when they even bother to sift for education).
The left's demonisation and in a few cases persecution of republican views has driven them underground. The dems have no idea how many there are, where they are and how many are going to vote.
You can see that in their comments today.
Can you link to some please?
Some of what you say is suggesting rubbish sampling up front eg over sampling graduates, but I thought they had rectified that issue.
You also said they are not polling enough Republicans to get a proper sample. You don't sample by the end result you are trying to get eg party you are voting for (other than by sampling based upon registration [which I assume is what you mean] and then you keep going until you get the appropriate sample).
Surely you fix your mix of sampling beforehand and carry on until you get it. If Republicans are shy it will just mean some of the polling will have to be larger to get the appropriate sample size of say republican registered voters or non graduates, etc, etc.
I don't see the issue unless they were rubbish at setting up the sampling in the first place or something has changed since they did to make Republicans more shy. If the latter they won't know that until after the vote when they see they have underestimated the Republican vote and it is not that the Republicans were losing
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
I appreciate that it's not always easy to understand written English at a basic level so I will spell it out for you as you are, as evidenced by your posting on PB, extremely stupid.
I am not criticising people for panic buying. I am explaining to dickheads such as yourself that the circumstances which leads people to panic buy are now established. People will panic buy if they perceive there is a risk to supply. This happened recently in March-May and appears to be happening now, albeit in a more limited way.
Whenever anyone has advanced the idea of empty shelves on account of Brexit, complete arseholes such as yourself have said this is Project Fear.
But it has happened before and might be happening now and if you think the merest hint of supply problems come the end of the transition period will not result in it happening again then, frankly, you really need someone to put you out of your misery.
Nah you are a dickhead who has confirmed they think it is okay to scare people unnecessarily into panic buying to satisfy your own perverse political viewpoint. It has been your modus operandi for so long now you seem to do it as second nature without even thinking about it.
You are the sort of sad sack who looks forward to things going disastrously wrong just so you can have the satisfaction of being right, no matter what the cost. You own project fear. Enjoy it.
If CBS is right on the numbers cited by Mike in the header, Biden is entering Election Day with a lead of nearly 32 million votes. Total turnout for Trump just to catch up with Biden needs to top 170 million, i.e. more than 76 million on the day. That would be around 40+ million votes more than the two leading candidates got in 2016, and 33+ million more than the total 2016 vote.
Of course, we know with vote efficiency, Trump does not need to win the popular vote, but even so, if CBS's numbers are right, that is somewhat bigger than Everest for Trump.
Where are those votes? Look at the states.
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
Leads 100k by registration, but there are 2m unaffiliated already in as well. So say 1.5m day-of goes GOP 2:1 that's plus 500k, and Biden needs the unaffiliateds to net him 400k, eg break for him 1.2m:0.8m or 3:2, which sounds very plausible but not certain. That's not counting crossovers in the mail vote, which the polling says will be more GOP->Dem than Dem->GOP.
Seems pretty wide open to me.
That's pretty much where I am - not in either's column, way too close to call in FL.
As I have bet on Trump in Florida I have it firmly in the red column.
I have a feeling the seniors are going to do for Trump in Fla, many of them will even be registered as Republicans prior to Covid.
Not in any way at all excusing the dickheads, but as an aside, why the hell didn't the Supermarkets just impose a limit for a week or so, until the morons saw there would be no shortage. It should have been obvious that the terminally bewildered mob would react like this again.
It's just Project Fear that the supermarket shelves could be stripped bare because of...
While Brexit could easily lead to shortages of imported goods, it is harder to see why Covid will. But in defence of "dickheads" that is not the question. If everyone else is panic-buying spaghetti hoops then it is only sensible for a customer who is not a dickhead to add a couple of tins to their own trolley while there are any left on the shelves. The tragedy of the commons does not involve any individual acting irrationally.
We have broken the back of any dickhead saying that Brexit-related bare shelves is "Project Fear".
Bullshit. Covid hasn't caused shortages and bare shelves. Morons thinking it will and panic buying is what has caused it. As such if you are one of those predicting shortages because of Brexit and so encouraging people to panic buy then you are one of the dickheads. It is up to you whether you want to own that label.
Ah. The dickhead in chief speaks.
So you are owning the label. Good to know. Hopefully this is the last we will hear from you criticising people for panic buying since you think it is acceptable to tell them it is necessary and they are right to do so.
Panic buyers probably exist to some extent, but their principal role is akin to that of the treacherous saboteurs who get the blame for North Korea missing its 5 year tractor production target. The system works on just-in-time restocking by consumers, and by supermarkets. It is possible for there to be an ENTIRELY VIRTUOUS shift away from that; people rightly think if they buy twice the milk and twice the pasta, that's half the highly dangerous and antisocial supermarket runs. 50 prudent milk and pasta doublers empty the shelves exactly as efficiently as one fifty-litre panic buyer.
If you are demonising, you are losing.
That argument only applies if there really is the possibility of a shortage due to an external factor. There wasn't n March and there isn't now. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that. So there is nothing virtuous about even going out and buying twice the milk and pasta you normally do. All that does is ensure that those who might actually need it because they have run out at home can't get it.
Labour seem to want to focus on Rishi as he may succeed Boris sooner than later
Also notice Starmer did not reference his 8% proposed corporation tax increase to the CBI
It's a possibility, though it seems like a decent attack line anyway.
Rishi is about the only senior Conservative with a good public image right now. Partly, he does seem genuinely good for a young'un, partly because his shiny image is still shiny (though I can see him becoming more than faintly absurd if he keeps the Insta-vibe going much longer). But mostly because, he hosed money around like a drunken sailor. The right thing to do, but also easy popularity.
But was that the real Rishi? He is, after all, a rich man who worked for a hedge fund. The government has been considerably less generous during the time of tiers. I don't think he's denied that he doesn't like the cost of Lockdown 2. If the opposition can convert Dishy Rishi into Stingy Sunak in the public's mind, that seems worth their while.
All political parties have members who are good people and members who are not. Rishi stands out from so many of current front line Tories because he is a decent human being. Yes he's a Conservative and is having to filter events through that world view. But he has thrown caution to the wind and thrown oceans of cash at people in ways that were almost inconceivable for a Tory chancellor to do.
Absolutely. Rishi is an impressive politician, decent human, firmly in a part of the Conservative tradition. Furlough was a huge achievement.
But since than, there have been definite missteps by the government, mostly quibbling over tiny amounts of cash- FSM and Tier 3 funding for example. The government does seem to have overdone "back to normal" in a way that has Treasury fingerprints all over it. If Rishi did try to avoid or delay Lockdown 2, that might be costly in lives and money.
Rishi is good politician and a good person. But not above criticism.
He comes across well, but the kind of aggressive hedge funds he made his money with don't suggest he's not the most moral person around.
Hedge funds didn't create the financial crisis, they spotted the weaknesses and profited from it but they didn't create the weaknesses.
Saying that a hedge fund created the financial crisis is as illiterate as suggesting the Trump will lose because people have bet against him (rather than people have bet against him because they can see he is losing).
In a sense that's true, Philip. If we are going to go back to original causes we could probably do no better than identify Bill Clinton and the legislation that encouraged the creation of large amounts of sub-prime debt in the USA. After that I suppose you could say it was a system failure; the hedge funds and banks piled in to exploit the opportunity. It became a high-stakes game of pass the parcel in which the taxpayer was eventually left holding the package and its odious contents.
Not sure that gives the hedgefunders a pass though.
Clinton legislation did not create a large amount of sub prime debt.
The legislation that people try to blame forced banks to do nothing. The first simply outlawed racist red lining practices in issuing mortgages. It didn't force banks to perform any lending.
The additional lending that Fanny May and Freddie Mac did to minorities at the time had a lower default rate than general mortgages issued by commercial banks come the financial crisis.
Trying to blame Clinton for the sib-prime situation is coded, dog whistle racism.
Comments
Biden leads registereds by 100,000 or so in Florida, with 1.5m plus probably to vote on election day.
Unless there's a massive crossover, or indies break very heavily for Biden, Trump wins Florida.
https://cnalysis.com/articles/our-final-forecast-state-legislatures
...In our final state legislative forecast, we have Democrats favored to flip 6 state legislative chambers: the Minnesota Senate, the Arizona House, the Arizona Senate, the Iowa House, the Michigan House, and the Texas House, in that order of likelihood. Republicans, meanwhile, are favored to flip the Alaska House.
The most competitive chambers on Tuesday (in a Tilt column) are in the states of Iowa, Michigan, Texas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, all critical swing states in the Electoral College.
Nationwide, Democrats are favored to have a net gain of 123 single-member state legislative districts in our forecast: a net gain of 77 seats in the lower chambers and 46 seats in the upper chambers. When including multi member districts, it is likely that this number will be slightly higher due to the amount of multi-member districts in Vermont and New Hampshire where it appears Democrats will make gains. Democrats are also likely to make gains in Arizona’s entirely multi-member-district lower chamber. Republicans may net a few seats in the multi-member district chambers in West Virginia, North Dakota and South Dakota, but not enough to cancel out the seats that Democrats will likely gain in New England and Arizona...
If we were talking about anything else people would surely say this year is a regression to the mean (assuming 923 was pretty normal, it is actually a little bit higher than the previous few years)
We didn't throw street parties to celebrate the 880, the extra months of life that people who would usually have died in that period, yet any mention that this year might be a correction of that low is treated as if it were heresy. I don't get why
(aka invitation for people to show off how clever they think they are)
This is a free fact.
https://www.tipponline.com/article/ibd-tipp-2020-daily-presidential-tracking-poll-day-22
https://www.theregister.com/2020/10/31/ai_covid_cough/
FWIW, I think Florida is Trump's best chance for resisting the blue wave. I don't think he can do it in AZ, NH, MI, WI, PA, NC or GA (or the two districts in ME and NE), and might not even in TX and OH. So FL won't really matter.
I would have thought it was more convincing outside the UK.
I might be misapplying it - but if the odds of winning his bet are 90% (538 model) and he is getting odds of 1.5... then you should put 70% of your betting funds on it?
1.5 million ED votes, follow same pattern as IPEV.
GOP + 250k votes over Democrats.
10% lead amongst NPA for Biden (Not an overly wild assumption)
= ~ 50,000 vote win for Biden.
tldr - Florida may well be close.
At which point people will forget or ignore the year or so that restrictions were in place. They will ignore that the t&t program was a farce. And they will remember, the govt hopes, that BoJo et al got us through it all.
There appears as you say to be no other possible rationale to try something that demonstrably failed last time round and is being conducted in worse overall conditions (ie winter).
I am constantly amazed by the power of conspiracy theories and alternative facts. Researching for a presentation on Infection Control of CCHF, I was looking on the web for good graphics about Germ Theory and came across a bunch of stuff about how Germ Theory is wrong, bugs don't cause disease, and all we need to do in order to not get ill is to eat right and boost our immune system!!!
Edit: This particular idiocy has its own Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism
Seems pretty wide open to me.
What you are saying is that he has an absolutely massive conflict of interest right there. Not necessarily intentional but he cannot escape it. One could argue that Mr Sunak is the last person in the world who should be CotE.
https://twitter.com/ProfJaneGreen/status/1323253349085552640?s=20
Particularly if you're a multi-millionaire...
When you say the clever pollsters are admitting the problems in getting Republican voters to talk what evidence do you have for this? if such a phenomena existed before they will have built it in to their sampling. If it is new or has changed they will not know until afterwards when they get it wrong and analyze why.
By the way, I'm also disappointed that Starmer didn't push for this, instead saying that the lockdown shouldn't end before current problems are fixed (R; test and trace).
https://uk.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-germany-merkel-measur/light-at-end-of-coronavirus-tunnel-some-way-off-merkel-idINS8N2GR0CF
Given that 136 million votes were cast, if the electorate were 157 million, that would be a turnout of 87%; 230 million gives a more realist turnout of 59%
4 way it is Biden 48.8%, Trump 45.6%, Jorgensen 2.1%, Hawkins 0.9% and 2% refuse to say
https://www.investors.com/news/trump-vs-biden-poll-race-tight-ibd-tipp-presidential-poll/
So he needs things to go his way even more than then and my feeling is with turnout clearly up this time, more of those are going to be voting Biden than Trump. When you factor in the pandemic and how he has reacted to that, his chances are very slim though not impossible.
Even if you are a republican leaning pollster using multi-modes of contact its difficult to get enough repubs for a proper sample given registrations. For a democrat-leaning pollster, using graduate entry labour and phone only polls, its next to impossible.
Check out where they poll in a given state (the cities). check out who they poll (university graduates, and that's when they even bother to sift for education).
The left's demonisation and in a few cases persecution of republican views has driven them underground. The dems have no idea how many there are, where they are and how many are going to vote.
You can see that in their comments today.
With a c 3 million deficit Trump was able to finagle the EC in 2016. In 2020 with a c10 million deficit? TBH I really see no realistic way he can win the EC on those numbers. The differential t/o OTD is unlikely to be anything like the numbers required to turn around the Trump deficit in the record number of early votes.
More to the point, as Mike points out in the header, the efficiency of the GOP operation would have to be an order of magnitude ahead of anything we have seen this campaign.
There is plenty of evidence that suggests Trump has simply not recovered enough to even get close. The Dems have been fired up and the GOP has actually lost a chunk of voters since 2016 (2018 and Lincoln project confirms)
So, I´m thinking my Biden bets are pretty safe. In fact there is still a significant chance of a Biden landslide, though TBH I´d settle for the 7 point margin that these crude numbers suggest.
Hedge funds didn't create the financial crisis, they spotted the weaknesses and profited from it but they didn't create the weaknesses.
Saying that a hedge fund created the financial crisis is as illiterate as suggesting the Trump will lose because people have bet against him (rather than people have bet against him because they can see he is losing).
If you are demonising, you are losing.
I am not criticising people for panic buying. I am explaining to dickheads such as yourself that the circumstances which leads people to panic buy are now established. People will panic buy if they perceive there is a risk to supply. This happened recently in March-May and appears to be happening now, albeit in a more limited way.
Whenever anyone has advanced the idea of empty shelves on account of Brexit, complete arseholes such as yourself have said this is Project Fear.
But it has happened before and might be happening now and if you think the merest hint of supply problems come the end of the transition period will not result in it happening again then, frankly, you really need someone to put you out of your misery.
Not sure that gives the hedgefunders a pass though.
Some of what you say is suggesting rubbish sampling up front eg over sampling graduates, but I thought they had rectified that issue.
You also said they are not polling enough Republicans to get a proper sample. You don't sample by the end result you are trying to get eg party you are voting for (other than by sampling based upon registration [which I assume is what you mean] and then you keep going until you get the appropriate sample).
Surely you fix your mix of sampling beforehand and carry on until you get it. If Republicans are shy it will just mean some of the polling will have to be larger to get the appropriate sample size of say republican registered voters or non graduates, etc, etc.
I don't see the issue unless they were rubbish at setting up the sampling in the first place or something has changed since they did to make Republicans more shy. If the latter they won't know that until after the vote when they see they have underestimated the Republican vote and it is not that the Republicans were losing
https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1323278700675133447?s=20
You are the sort of sad sack who looks forward to things going disastrously wrong just so you can have the satisfaction of being right, no matter what the cost. You own project fear. Enjoy it.
The legislation that people try to blame forced banks to do nothing. The first simply outlawed racist red lining practices in issuing mortgages. It didn't force banks to perform any lending.
The additional lending that Fanny May and Freddie Mac did to minorities at the time had a lower default rate than general mortgages issued by commercial banks come the financial crisis.
Trying to blame Clinton for the sib-prime situation is coded, dog whistle racism.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1323289338793385994?s=20
RIP Johnson