Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

In spite of latest polls Trump is a 56% chance on Betfair to retain Florida – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2020 in General
imageIn spite of latest polls Trump is a 56% chance on Betfair to retain Florida – politicalbetting.com

My only eve of election bet has been on Biden in Florida where the latest round of polls as collated by MSNBC above has him with a fighting chance of victory.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2020
    Eve of poll IBID/TIPP

    Biden 49.5% and Trump 45.4%.

    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/
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    Second like Trumpy
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    HYUFD said:

    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states

    You still think it will tip on a point!
  • HYUFD said:

    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states

    Plenty of routes to the White house for Biden without Florida, very few without Pennsylvania.

    Although certainly possible if, contrary to polling, Biden outperforms Clinton among hispanics and underperforms, relatively, among whites.

    Minnesota - Arizona - Nevada - Florida, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania. Not really consistent with the polls.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2020
    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited November 2020
    A few bets from the last few days:

    Dems to hold the House - 1.18 - Betway
    GOP to win Alabama Senate Seat - 1.167 - Skybet
    Kanye West to win over 50,000 votes nationally - 1.95 - Betway
    Biden to win AZ/FL/GA/TX - 9 - Betfred

    (Some odds may have changed, but these were right over the weekend)
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited November 2020
    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    How many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state?

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    HYUFD said:

    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states

    On this we agree. If Trump loses FL(which im not expecting) he's lost. If he loses PA I see no way he wins other states that would allow him some miraculous way to win. I've said all along that PA is the key. It is the only reason I think theres a chance for Trump. A 5% or so lead for Biden which seems to be around the average , should be enough but its within the realms of not being. Its why I see a mess in the days following tomorrows election.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Very sensible and why wouldn't people panic buy. They have seen that shortages can occur almost overnight and the myth that supermarket shelves could never be empty because this is the UK has been completely busted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2020
    Mal557 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states

    On this we agree. If Trump loses FL(which im not expecting) he's lost. If he loses PA I see no way he wins other states that would allow him some miraculous way to win. I've said all along that PA is the key. It is the only reason I think theres a chance for Trump. A 5% or so lead for Biden which seems to be around the average , should be enough but its within the realms of not being. Its why I see a mess in the days following tomorrows election.
    My gut feeling is we could be heading for 2000 2 and hanging chads etc all over again in Florida or Pennsylvania or both but we will see
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    I don't think virtually any voters recognise the names of different pollsters and differentially provide responses depending on who is asking them. And I think pollsters have various methods for trying to get sufficient voters from different groups and have tweaked those methods to learn from 2016.
  • First ... yet again!
  • RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Q has told them the pollsters work for the deep state and will harvest their info to frame them for crimes against kids?
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    Republican supporting pollsters got it right last time. If we go by their figures this time then Trump will win.
    However there is a wide divergence eg two polls in Iowa over the last 24 hours have shown gap down to 2% whilst the other Biden ahead by 1%, different to the trusted local paper 7% for Trump. Then we have good old Trafalgar Group currently way out of step with the others in the Rust Belt States, but they got it as right as anyone last time. IBBD very close to their forecast last time which again was very accurate.
    I will be pleasantly surprised if Biden hangs on. If not, we should fear for the future, both short and long term, whether we are right, left or centre. BUT we are where we are.
    What happens if Biden wins by 10%, as some polls are predicting and loses in the College, there will be mayhem.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are:
    FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).

    FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%.
    PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%.
    OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.

    To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.
  • My most recent bets:

    - Trump to get over 70m votes (hat-tip @kinabalu on the previous thread) @ 1.81 Betfair Exchange
    - Trump to win North Carolina @ 2.1 (SpreadEx, now shortened to Evens)

    In both cases I'm trying to balance my risk a bit since I've got an open Buy on Biden at SPIN at an effective 284.
  • Biden "in with a fighting chance" ... I should cocoa! If the professional pollsters can't get this heavily polled state right on the eve of the election, they are not worthy of the name.
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    I see Rasmussen have done their bit for Trump with todays approval poll 52% and +4. There was no doubt that they and Trafalgar would be out with the best polls they could for him today. I remember a Ras approval poll maybe only 2 weeks ago that had him about -7 or 8.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    As Trump's chances on 538 overall have declined, his chance of winning a 2016 Clinton State have risen. Now 25%

    New Hampshire might be worth considering for Trump. Biden only took 8.4% in the Democratic Primary, coming fifth.
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    rkrkrk said:

    If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are:
    FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).

    FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%.
    PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%.
    OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.

    To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.

    I have to say, and despite respecting 538 greatly, I have to say the Betfair % look closer to me for sure for FL and PA
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    I have butterflies. I'm feeling a bit stressed about this US election!
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    I am still feeling this to be a blue wave election (and mightily pleased to see that Astrologer lady backing me up!)

    My map is currently 384 Biden, 125 Trump with FL as a toss up. Forced choice, it goes Biden, so 413/125. Best case, Biden mops up IA, so 419/119.

    For the Senate, I have Dems +6.

    House, I haven't bothered looking at, but foresee more Dem pick ups there too.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431
    edited November 2020

    kinabalu said:
    Ignorant far left garbage.

    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).
    While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.

    Does that mean that hedge funds are the ultimate evil? Of course not. Does that mean they are incapable of harm? Take the first sentence of your comment and replace the third word with its antonym.
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    theakes said:

    Republican supporting pollsters got it right last time. If we go by their figures this time then Trump will win.
    However there is a wide divergence eg two polls in Iowa over the last 24 hours have shown gap down to 2% whilst the other Biden ahead by 1%, different to the trusted local paper 7% for Trump. Then we have good old Trafalgar Group currently way out of step with the others in the Rust Belt States, but they got it as right as anyone last time. IBBD very close to their forecast last time which again was very accurate.
    I will be pleasantly surprised if Biden hangs on. If not, we should fear for the future, both short and long term, whether we are right, left or centre. BUT we are where we are.
    What happens if Biden wins by 10%, as some polls are predicting and loses in the College, there will be mayhem.

    Biden wont' win by 10%, more like 5 or 6 I think, but it will still be total mayhem. Not sure what the pollsters would do. As it would be far worse than 2016 for them.
  • IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    Even if Trump wins PA NC FL GA and ME 02 he will lose the EC if Biden wins NE 02 and Arizona. With the latter it will be the ultimate revenge for John McCain 271 -269 :

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/PwVX8
  • RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    There does seem to be a paradox that some Trump voters are telling pollsters they are too shy to tell pollsters.
  • kicorse said:

    While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.

    Really? I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. Obviously they weren't all doing the same thing, but it was hedge funds most of all who were improving economic stability by betting against the bubble. They would have lost their shirts if they'd been feeding the bubble.
  • I got Biden 46-49% at average 15 and 49-52 at average 5.
    This was in order to be able to back Biden at 1/2 for a small but virtually guaranteed win + importantly a freeroll for the double up if Biden wins with -52% (quite likely imo).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    So they maintain a list of which pollsters are "democrat-leaning" that they consult before answering? I somehow doubt that. As for the career decision, who do they think the pollsters are going to tell? These things are pretty anonymous.
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    Quincel said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    I don't think virtually any voters recognise the names of different pollsters and differentially provide responses depending on who is asking them. And I think pollsters have various methods for trying to get sufficient voters from different groups and have tweaked those methods to learn from 2016.
    It never ceases to amaze me that people try to prove Trump wins by the size of his rallies. As I've posted before IF he wins it will be from the votes of those who didnt go, those that do are baked in to his numbers. If Trump was only getting 35% of the national vote, he would still attract crowds like that. It is the nature of his core supporters.

    None of this is saying he cant win, but it wont be the 50.000 covid spreaders at that rally it will be those not there who vote 'shyly'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    You are making some pretty wild accusations about half the country. Indeed, you are guilty of the very crime that you accuse others of.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    CNN - 95,481,945 early votes - Approx 70% of the total 2016 vote.
  • Mal557Mal557 Posts: 662
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    You are making some pretty wild accusations about half the country. Indeed, you are guilty of the very crime that you accuse others of.
    Agreed
  • kicorse said:

    kinabalu said:
    Ignorant far left garbage.

    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).
    While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.

    Does that mean that hedge funds are the ultimate evil? Of course not. Does that mean they are incapable of harm? Take the first sentence of your comment and replace the third word with its antonym.
    They did provide positive feedback to the collapse but the collapse was due. Suggesting they caused the collapse is like claiming that Britain was perfectly fine within the ERM and evil Soros was the only reason Black Wednesday happened.

    No.

    Soros spotted the pressures the pound was under and added to it but the pressure was there already. Ditto a generation later with the hedge funds.

    Both times the real problems were, as they almost always are, the fundamentals not those with the foresight to see what is going wrong.
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    Correction 270 - 268 on my 3.19 pm post.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Scott_xP said:
    Is that right? I thought the error was in the methodology, not missing a late swing.
  • Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.
  • Hedge funds didn't make President Clinton legally require subprime mortgages.
    Hedge funds didn't make Brown remove the BoE's oversight of the market.
    Hedge funds didn't make RBS pay over the odds overleveraging itself to buy ABN Amro.
    Hedge funds didn't make sovereign governments max out their deficit during growth years.

    The idea hedge funds created the financial crisis is preposterous. Many bad decisions over more than a decade led to it.
  • My most recent bets:

    - Trump to get over 70m votes (hat-tip @kinabalu on the previous thread) @ 1.81 Betfair Exchange
    - Trump to win North Carolina @ 2.1 (SpreadEx, now shortened to Evens)

    In both cases I'm trying to balance my risk a bit since I've got an open Buy on Biden at SPIN at an effective 284.

    That bet on Trump securing >70 million votes is tantamount to free money imho, especially with fine weather forecast coast to coast. The Betfair odds have shortened a tad to 0.75.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,336
    edited November 2020
    I don't know much about betting, I'm only here for the political chat, but I would have thought that 50/50 is about right for either contender, in Florida.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 431

    kicorse said:

    While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.

    Really? I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. Obviously they weren't all doing the same thing, but it was hedge funds most of all who were improving economic stability by betting against the bubble. They would have lost their shirts if they'd been feeding the bubble.
    It is possible to both feed the bubble and bet against it, you know, by changing your position in time. Given the obvious analogy with betting, that shouldn't be hard to understand, but the article kinabalu linked spells it out clearly enough.

    Note that the article is obviously written with an agenda and oversimplifies, but it would be delusional to pretend that the mechanisms were not occurring. How great a contribution they made can be debated, and if someone with expertise wants to argue that it was small, I'll listen with an open mind. However calling it nonsense sounds ideological rather than rational.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    edited November 2020
    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Is that right? I thought the error was in the methodology, not missing a late swing.
    No, there was a genuine late swing. It was identified in the official post mortems such as the Kennedy Report.

    It wasn't the only factor contributing to the so-called polling failure (which wasn't actually all that bad) but it was a material one.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    JACK_W said:

    CNN - 95,481,945 early votes - Approx 70% of the total 2016 vote.

    Mr Jack, what is your forecast for votes cast? I am thinking perhaps 15% or so up on 2016, so around 155 million.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    Hedge funds didn't make President Clinton legally require subprime mortgages.
    Hedge funds didn't make Brown remove the BoE's oversight of the market.
    Hedge funds didn't make RBS pay over the odds overleveraging itself to buy ABN Amro.
    Hedge funds didn't make sovereign governments max out their deficit during growth years.

    The idea hedge funds created the financial crisis is preposterous. Many bad decisions over more than a decade led to it.

    It's like the mythology of Black Wednesday - Soros didn't cause the problem. He simply bet on reality winning.
  • TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    My emergency reserves seem to have found themselves wrapped round my tummy.

    :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited November 2020

    Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.

    In 2018 Trump was not on the ballot, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 either, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 and a surge of white working class voters for Trump in 2016 in the rustbelt, voters who did not bother to vote in 2018.

    In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes ie only 5 million less than the 65 million Hillary got in 2016, the GOP only got 50 million votes in 2018 though, a huge 12 million fewer than the 62 million who voted for Trump in 2016.
  • Thats from yesterday, the mood music from the talks has been negative today according to the radio, but still ongoing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Is that right? I thought the error was in the methodology, not missing a late swing.
    No, there was a genuine late swing. It was identified in the official post mortems such as the Kennedy Report.

    It wasn't the only factor contributing to the so-called polling failure (which wasn't actually all that bad) but it was a material one.
    Ah, thanks! I wasn't aware they had a report looking into the previous failings.
  • kicorse said:

    While it may be over-simplistic to say they caused the crisis, it's just incorrect to suggest that hedge funds were merely passive beneficiaries. Not only did they provide a positive feedback in the collapse itself, they also contributed to the underlying instability by feeding the bubble.

    Really? I'm pretty sure that's nonsense. Obviously they weren't all doing the same thing, but it was hedge funds most of all who were improving economic stability by betting against the bubble. They would have lost their shirts if they'd been feeding the bubble.
    Well said.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    edited November 2020
    Mal557 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    If you like 538's model... then the states with the biggest discrepancy between the odds and 538's predictions are:
    FL, PA and OH (I think - some states I didn't check, someone better at coding than me could do this automatically I'm sure).

    FL: 538 says 68% chance vs. betfair on 44%.
    PA: 538 says 87% chance vs. betfair on 65%.
    OH: 538 says 49% chance vs. betfair on 31%.

    To my mind, that makes Florida and PA excellent value.

    I have to say, and despite respecting 538 greatly, I have to say the Betfair % look closer to me for sure for FL and PA
    I've been trying to work out what the best value bet is at the moment. My only position is a £10 buy of Biden ECVs at 285 which I'm very happy with. Wish I'd risked a bigger stake.

    I think the best value bet is probably Biden to be President.

    Biden POTUS: 538 says 90% vs betfair on 66%

    The relative value in backing Biden to be POTUS doesn't look as good as backing Biden to win Florida say. But the probability of the bet landing is, of course, significantly more likely.

    The thing is with a decent position already on Biden I'm reluctant to stump up a big stake at short odds to make the additional bet worth winning. But Biden to be POTUS at current odds does look huge value.

    Decisions, decisions ......
  • Thats from yesterday, the mood music from the talks has been negative today according to the radio, but still ongoing.
    That was my point.
  • Hedge funds didn't make President Clinton legally require subprime mortgages.
    Hedge funds didn't make Brown remove the BoE's oversight of the market.
    Hedge funds didn't make RBS pay over the odds overleveraging itself to buy ABN Amro.
    Hedge funds didn't make sovereign governments max out their deficit during growth years.

    The idea hedge funds created the financial crisis is preposterous. Many bad decisions over more than a decade led to it.

    It's like the mythology of Black Wednesday - Soros didn't cause the problem. He simply bet on reality winning.
    💯
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    You are making some pretty wild accusations about half the country. Indeed, you are guilty of the very crime that you accuse others of.
    If you actually read my post you will notice I am not referring to the average democrat voter in the street, but senior democrats and their supporters in the mainstream media. A minority, but extremely powerful, nevertheless.

    Look you can believe the polls are accurate or not. To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever. I went searching for answers as to why the polls might be wrong. I found a few, though they were not comprehensive and I bet accordingly.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    My emergency reserves seem to have found themselves wrapped round my tummy.

    :)
    LOLz. Was doing well until the last month. Up a few pounds, alas.
  • We haven't got long to wait to find out if mr bowtie just got lucky once and the polling industry is saved or if they are all going to be a reputational bailout like never seen before.
  • Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    How many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state?

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    Maybe THIS is Trafalgar's secret: "Hello, I'm calling today to poll you on behalf of America's greatest President ever, Donald . . ."
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Quincel said:

    A few bets from the last few days:

    Dems to hold the House - 1.18 - Betway
    GOP to win Alabama Senate Seat - 1.167 - Skybet
    Kanye West to win over 50,000 votes nationally - 1.95 - Betway
    Biden to win AZ/FL/GA/TX - 9 - Betfred

    (Some odds may have changed, but these were right over the weekend)

    GOP to win in Alabama is outstanding at those odds.
  • In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc

    I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited November 2020

    Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.

    That's a strong point to which I have no real answer, to be fair, except the dems appeared to have run out of mud to throw at Trump and are facing allegations themselves at the top.

    In 2018 they were in full Russia impeachment mode.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever.

    No hyperbole there. For the US, you only have to look back 4 years for a worse candidate than Biden.
  • TimT said:

    To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever.

    No hyperbole there. For the US, you only have to look back 4 years for a worse candidate than Biden.
    Donald J Trump?
  • Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624
    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"

    They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....


  • In 2018 Trump was not on the ballot, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 either, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 and a surge of white working class voters for Trump in 2016 in the rustbelt, voters who did not bother to vote in 2018.

    In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes ie only 5 million less than the 65 million Hillary got in 2016, the GOP only got 50 million votes in 2018 though, a huge 12 million fewer than the 62 million who voted for Trump in 2016.

    That's a reason why the Republicans lost.
    Not a reason why Rasmussen got it so badly wrong.
  • Quincel said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    I don't think virtually any voters recognise the names of different pollsters and differentially provide responses depending on who is asking them. And I think pollsters have various methods for trying to get sufficient voters from different groups and have tweaked those methods to learn from 2016.
    Perhaps the Shy Trumpskyites are waiting for survey conducted by PB?

    That is, Proud Boys!
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    Haven't got involved in this until last few days. I've backed.

    "Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire" at 7/1

    Trump 200-249 ECV at 4/1

    Biden to win Florida at 11/10

    Disappointingly 6/5 widely available on that last bet now.

    Some cash spare for on the night wagering.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    PM "doubling time now faster in SE than NW".
    Therefore time for national response and shed loads of cash forthwith.
    No longer " unfair on Cornwall". Naturally.
  • Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology

    What if it wasn't a politician?
  • Barnesian said:

    I have butterflies. I'm feeling a bit stressed about this US election!

    My main concern is that I have taken Wednesday off from work, but still won't know the result by Thursday morning.
  • TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"

    They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....
    Before Covid there was research that showed the idea of the weekly shop had gone out of fashion. With all the 24hr super markets and the likes of Tescos Metro, people as you say just buy for today / tomorrow.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology

    Boris/govt give a shit rating? Not high.
  • HYUFD said:

    Why are people quoting pulling from 2016 when there is a more recent national election available for comparison. At the midterms in 2018 the pollsters, apart from Rasmussen, got it pretty right.

    In 2018 Trump was not on the ballot, there was no shy GOP vote in 2018 or 2014 and there was no shy Romney vote in 2012 either, there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 and a surge of white working class voters for Trump in 2016 in the rustbelt, voters who did not bother to vote in 2018.

    In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes ie only 5 million less than the 65 million Hillary got in 2016, the GOP only got 50 million votes in 2018 though, a huge 12 million fewer than the 62 million who voted for Trump in 2016.
    Clinton wasn't on the ballot in 2018 either. have you factored that in?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    In about 48h time we will see who is right and who is wrong about Trafalgar and actual real pollsters etc

    I wonder if those who are wrong whomever they may be will acknowledge they were and contemplate why. If Trump wins now I will certainly be wrong.

    In about 35 hours we'll have a pretty good idea; at the very least we'll know whether it's a close run thing, or if one candidate has run away with it.

    The moment we start getting serious numbers from Florida, we'll start getting useful information on how key demographics such as the suburbs, older voters, rural America etc., are voting. Pretty much the only information we won't start getting in reasonable quantity is how Hispanic (non-Cuban) Americans will vote, because Florida's Hispanics don't look like the rest of the US.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,787
    If Trump wins, I think it will be more of a 'silent majority' effect that is being missed by pollsters because of sampling errors, rather than a shy voter effect.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    TimT said:

    To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever.

    No hyperbole there. For the US, you only have to look back 4 years for a worse candidate than Biden.
    And lest anybody has forgotten, much of the GOP leadership was saying so at the time. People who now kiss Trump's arse were amongst his sternest critics at first.
  • Blaming the Rothschilds
    Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich'
    Blaming George Soros
    Blaming short-sellers
    Blaming Hedge Funds

    It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.

    (There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    Blaming the Rothschilds
    Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich'
    Blaming George Soros
    Blaming short-sellers
    Blaming Hedge Funds

    It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.

    (There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).

    Are you talking Trump or Corbyn?
  • I know he is a lawyer, but does he ever give it a rest from taking legal action against everybody under the sun?

    https://order-order.com/2020/11/02/jolyons-knocks-his-builders-for-490000-loses-legal-battle-against-them-the-case-continues/
  • Mal557 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Florida and Pennsylvania almost certainly the key tipping point states

    On this we agree. If Trump loses FL(which im not expecting) he's lost. If he loses PA I see no way he wins other states that would allow him some miraculous way to win. I've said all along that PA is the key. It is the only reason I think theres a chance for Trump. A 5% or so lead for Biden which seems to be around the average , should be enough but its within the realms of not being. Its why I see a mess in the days following tomorrows election.
    Trump needs them both. Biden can get away with losing either and might even get awaylosing both but he'd need some pretty damn good compensating results elsewhere.

    My gut feeling is that Florida is now 50/50. I will be astonsihed if Trump wins PA.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    TimT said:

    To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever.

    No hyperbole there. For the US, you only have to look back 4 years for a worse candidate than Biden.
    Hillary Clinton was strong in conviction and powerful in intellect.

    Joe Biden was neither when he was at his peak. Now, I am sorry to say, he is far below his peak.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,624

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"

    They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....
    Before Covid there was research that showed the idea of the weekly shop had gone out of fashion. With all the 24hr super markets and the likes of Tescos Metro, people as you say just buy for today / tomorrow.
    I remember a long while back, there was a rice shortage worldwide. A few politicians in this country started ranting about people buying 20Kg sacks of rice....

    Until they were gently reminded of who (mostly) buys them, and why..... oh and the fact that sales of the big sacks of rice hadn't changed much.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    RobD said:

    Look at that 50,000 strong Trump rally in Butler Pennsylvania.

    Hiow many of those people do you honestly think have been reached and polled by democrat-leaning pollsters trying to assess the state.

    How many would give those pollsters the time of day?

    What would they have against a pollster phoning them, or participating in an online panel?
    Sorry where have you been in the last four years?

    Democrat institutions and the mainstream media have demonised and vilified Trump supporters to an enormous extent. To Dems, they are openly just racist redneck scum Openly supporting Trump can be a career decision.

    Pollsters who are honest will tell you some republican people are extremely cagey, especially when anonymity is not continually stressed and guaranteed.

    I got this from a pollster who does a two hour show every day on his results and experiences.
    So the pollsters fluked it in 2018 then?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328

    TimT said:

    To me they always looked wrong because Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever.

    No hyperbole there. For the US, you only have to look back 4 years for a worse candidate than Biden.
    Donald J Trump?
    By worse, I was meaning about ability to win an election, not policies or character.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837

    TimT said:

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt for @Tyndall

    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 lead 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.

    My prudent buying ‘because of the risk to supply‘ has positioned me so well that I have enough bog roll to last well into next year and have no need to worry about the panic buying of bog roll second time around. Good planning, I think!
    Surely all well run households are already topping up their rolling supply of 25+ bog rolls per person so have no need to panic. Just in time bog roll procurement is so 2019.
    No room left in this house for panic buying of paper products. The guest room closet has been full to overflowing since early March. Will top up on dog food and chicken stock though. Otherwise, the emergency reserves have been maintained in good shape.
    From the first panic - I actually talked to a few people working in supermarkets. They weren't seeing many of the 10 trolleys of bog roll types. Instead they were seeing many more people doing a "full shop"

    They reckoned that a lot of people lived with nothing in the cupboard. Bought for tonights dinner etc.... And then they suddenly decided to fill the kitchen cabinets.....
    Which is entirely rational behaviour. Add to that everyone who does a weekly "big shop", doing it this weekend, and buying even 25% more than usual, again, eminently sensible, and you have empty shelves without the slightest hint of anyone panicking at all.
  • "Biden is the worst candidate ever put forward for election in a major Western democracy ever."

    Worse that Adolph Hitler in 1932, when he ran (and lost) for President of Germany?
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 651
    TimT said:

    JACK_W said:

    CNN - 95,481,945 early votes - Approx 70% of the total 2016 vote.

    Mr Jack, what is your forecast for votes cast? I am thinking perhaps 15% or so up on 2016, so around 155 million.
    Hi Tim. I'm looking at 160M +
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    If Trump wins, I think it will be more of a 'silent majority' effect that is being missed by pollsters because of sampling errors, rather than a shy voter effect.

    I agree: you can almost always see evidence of "shy" voters in different results between phone and internet pollsters. Secondly, one would expect "s

    It's perfectly possible that Trump wins, and if he does, my money would be on in being because there was a failure to correctly weight rural and High School educated voters.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Wait, does Cahaly have a podcast?
  • Blaming the Rothschilds
    Blaming the 'gnomes of Zurich'
    Blaming George Soros
    Blaming short-sellers
    Blaming Hedge Funds

    It's the same silly story, almost always from a position of great ignorance.

    (There was also some anti-Semitism mixed in with some of these, but that's not true of the most recent couple, except on the loonier fringes of Corbynism).

    When people blame the likes of short sellers and hedge funds, I ask them a simple question.

    'Can you explain to me exactly what a hedge fund or short seller does?'

    The silence is golden.
  • Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology

    What if it wasn't a politician?
    Supposedly it was only Rishi, Gove, Shagger and ManCock at the meeting.
  • Have we covered the £1m bet on Biden?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2020

    Debate starting in the Commons. The Speaker makes a pointed and rather angry statement about the "discourtesy" of the leaks over the weekend. PM requested to ensure updates to his leak enquiry are given to the House and that the leaker be brought to the house to give an apology

    What if it wasn't a politician?
    Supposedly it was only Rishi, Gove, Shagger and ManCock at the meeting.
    Plus 15 scientists....one of which appears to have already leaked info.

    I actually think a number of people are leaking. You can see it in the likes of the Mail writeup of the timeline of events, it reads like different people all trying to get their excuse in.
This discussion has been closed.