A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
Hodges' mother says he's an idiot so I've ignored him.
A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
How would Shipman or Hodges know? They've hardly got any special insight or contacts.
So according to HYUFD everyone between the 7th and 93rd percentile is a middle income household? Hilarious. Households that may have many multiples of income difference between them that should for statistical analysis be put in the same category. Now that is silly.
In the US 80% of the population call themselves, 'middle class', sometimes higher with the remaining 20% either in the upper middle class or the rich or the poor and underclass
A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
Google via Associated Press have been calling AZ for Biden since this morning (UK time).
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
The best evidence available and correct me if I am wrong is that well-off areas still tend to vote Conservative and poorer areas Labour, except in around 120 metropolitan seats where race is a stronger predictor.
No the wealthiest areas in the UK now vote LD proportionally, of the LD seats they are now all well off and wealthy on the whole, from Oxford West and Abingdon to Richmond Park to St Albans and Bath and Kingston Upon Thames and Twickenham, the LDs have no working class seats like the Tories now have in the Red Wall or the Medway Towns or parts of Essex like Harlow and Thurrock.
A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
How would Shipman or Hodges know? They've hardly got any special insight or contacts.
Quite. Though Hodges seems to be celebrating the fact he called Biden - and Bidens won. I've not seen Biden winning yet.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
She won the popular vote.
So did Clement Attlee in 1951.
[scoffing] Yebbut that was a unique occurrence in the UK since the 1918 election. The popular vote loser has "won" the US presidency on FIVE occasions!
NHS chief executive says vaccine unlikely until 2021.
How does the vaccine affect the prospects for the incoming President, whoever he may be?
The vaccination programme, and return to some sort of good times, might have nothing to do with whoever ends up in the White House, but I'm sure that they'll get some reflected glory to bask in. Especially if it all turns out nice from, say late January 2021.
Biden has just gone from 1.4 to 1.35 in last 60 seconds!
The thing is there are quite a lot unknowns.
The consensus seems to assume GA and NC are for Trump but not certain. Let's take that.
We honestly don't know re AZ and NV. NV is very close and a lot closer than expected. AZ, the Rs have been racking up votes later on. I get @rcs1000 point re postal votes but I am not sure a 2018 example is useful for 2020 (see Texas) and you are relying on USPS delivering the votes / the court forcing them to
You are therefore left relying on PA. If this was just suburban / city votes, you would say Biden would win. But there are heavily Republican counties with a fair few votes to come.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
Yawn. Calling recounts just makes you look like a sore loser.
If Biden had lost Wisconsin but within the margin allowing for a recount under Wisconsin law, he'd be calling for one too.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results...
It goes well beyond misinformation. This is what he said earlier on (incidentally while urging that ballots should continue to be counted)..
... This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it...
Republicans are happy to insist on the terms of the constitution which award 60,000 voters in one state the same representation as 600,000 in another. But the constitution also mandates the unambiguous availability of weeks for states to count votes.
Trumps words are the ravings of someone attempting a usurpation.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
She won the popular vote.
So did Clement Attlee in 1951.
[scoffing] Yebbut that was a unique occurrence in the UK since the 1918 election. The popular vote loser has "won" the US presidency on FIVE occasions!
Biden has just gone from 1.4 to 1.35 in last 60 seconds!
The thing is there are quite a lot unknowns.
The consensus seems to assume GA and NC are for Trump but not certain. Let's take that.
We honestly don't know re AZ and NV. NV is very close and a lot closer than expected. AZ, the Rs have been racking up votes later on. I get @rcs1000 point re postal votes but I am not sure a 2018 example is useful for 2020 (see Texas) and you are relying on USPS delivering the votes / the court forcing them to
You are therefore left relying on PA. If this was just suburban / city votes, you would say Biden would win. But there are heavily Republican counties with a fair few votes to come.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
So according to HYUFD everyone between the 7th and 93rd percentile is a middle income household? Hilarious. Households that may have many multiples of income difference between them that should for statistical analysis be put in the same category. Now that is silly.
In the US 80% of the population call themselves, 'middle class', sometimes higher with the remaining 20% either in the upper middle class or the rich or the poor and underclass
Just because you call yourself middle class doesn't make you middle class...
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
The *way* she got the nomination was of a piece with the rest of it. And getting the nomination in a way that doesn't bring the party together is a stupid move.
I don't know how good a political operator you want her to be.
She knew what she wanted from an incredibly early stage. She moved effortlessly from the traditional First Lady role to the front line. She was a Senate huge-hitter. She was the first woman to secure the nomination of a major party (or indeed even come close). She did so while stitching it up sufficiently to avoid major moderate opposition. As has been mentioned, she won the popular vote.
Was she perfect? No, clearly not. But you're setting the bar so ridiculously high to be seen as a good political operator that I really don't know how many people could possibly clear it.
I am getting increasingly bewildered about this state and the posting on here is just confusing me more.
The AP has called it for Biden. Fox has called it for Biden. Other networks have not.
What is still outstanding and who does it favour? I can’t seem to find a clear answer. There’s been suggestion that the late votes are being counted and they favour Biden, but then I also read all the results that are yet to come in are from heavy Trump areas.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him. And i think he probably does think he's being cheated. I don't think he really understands the electoral process.
A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
Google via Associated Press have been calling AZ for Biden since this morning (UK time).
They and Fox News called AZ based on the numbers that came in quite early from Maricopa County (by far the biggest county there) and the fact Biden was doing very well. However there is still a lot of votes to come in and Trump is closing, and his campaign are bullish on their chances, so it looks like it will be much closer than Fox and AP thought, though they may well both still be right of course. No other major media has called it yet
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
The best evidence available and correct me if I am wrong is that well-off areas still tend to vote Conservative and poorer areas Labour, except in around 120 metropolitan seats where race is a stronger predictor.
No the wealthiest areas in the UK now vote LD proportionally, of the LD seats they are now all well off and wealthy on the whole, from Oxford West and Abingdon to Richmond Park to St Albans and Bath and Kingston Upon Thames and Twickenham, the LDs have no working class seats like the Tories now have in the Red Wall or the Medway Towns or parts of Essex like Harlow and Thurrock.
The Lib Dems only have 11 seats out of 650 some of which aren't all that wealthy. How can they be said to be the representatives of wealthy Britain? Pains me to say it but they are a bit of a fringe. Did they get more votes than the Tories amongst the top 10% of the income scale? Or top 7% which I know you like to attach great significance to.
So according to HYUFD everyone between the 7th and 93rd percentile is a middle income household? Hilarious. Households that may have many multiples of income difference between them that should for statistical analysis be put in the same category. Now that is silly.
Actually that's not far enough off Miliband's famous "squeezed middle".
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him.
I don’t know why it’s never occurred to the Labour Party here:
“When the early votes came through in Sunderland and the North East we were well ahead, but then those Tory bastards defrauded the nation by collecting votes elsewhere”.
Is it still likely to be true, as was speculated a while back, that bookies will lose money if Trump wins?
If "projected" EC votes are tied then Betfair will pay out on whoever is chosen under the Twelfth Amendment. Goodness knows what they will do if a tie is a projected but actual EC votes are NOT tied.
So according to HYUFD everyone between the 7th and 93rd percentile is a middle income household? Hilarious. Households that may have many multiples of income difference between them that should for statistical analysis be put in the same category. Now that is silly.
Actually that's not far enough off Miliband's famous "squeezed middle".
If you're trying to build a political coalition I suppose it makes sense. If you're doing statistical analysis not so much.
So here's my current take on states: WI and MI , confident Biden has them though Trumps already after his recount in WI PA I think it will be close but still think that lead will be too big a hill, a narrow win for Trump GA See PA NC Close but Trump again NV Trump campaign bullish on this but I think the Clark postals left will just do it, Biden narrowly AZ I honestly am not sure, but for no other reason than Maricopa county numbers, I think Biden wins it Final Tally Biden 270/ Trump 268
Democracy in the USA dependent upon no fun and games in Nevada then.
The hill is just a bit too steep I feel for Biden. I don't see him quite getting the high % he needs in those postals everywhere to overcome that lead.
Is it still likely to be true, as was speculated a while back, that bookies will lose money if Trump wins?
If "projected" EC votes are tied then Betfair will pay out on whoever is chosen under the Twelfth Amendment. Goodness knows what they will do if a tie is a projected but actual EC votes are NOT tied.
Is it still likely to be true, as was speculated a while back, that bookies will lose money if Trump wins?
If "projected" EC votes are tied then Betfair will pay out on whoever is chosen under the Twelfth Amendment. Goodness knows what they will do if a tie is a projected but actual EC votes are NOT tied.
I don't think a tie is possible.
In theory it would be if Michigan went for Trump and North Carolina for Biden (both uncalled at the moment). But either of those things is unlikely now, and both is extremely unlikely.
AZ is still in play, Fox and AP called it very early but no other major networks. Its good for him right now but I'd prefer one or two other calls for it before I relax.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him. And i think he probably does think he's being cheated. I don't think he really understands the electoral process.
He may very well -be- being cheated. Do you think the Dems wouldn't be raising hell if the situation was reversed?
As for the header, Republicans may be responsible for the electoral loophole that may be being fraudulently exploited, but that doesn't carry the same moral culpability as actually exploiting it.
But Ms Bingham — chair of the Vaccine Taskforce — said problems with ramping up manufacturing capacity meant the UK fell well short of this target. She predicted only 4million doses will be available before 2021.
Both Professor Pollard and Ms Bingham warned the first wave of vaccines would not be good enough to allow society to immediately return to normal, scuppering Boris Johnson's promise that 'life will return to normal next summer'.
AZ is still in play, Fox and AP called it very early but no other major networks. Its good for him right now but I'd prefer one or two other calls for it before I relax.
Mail in ballots that are postmarked on or before election day get counted. There are probably 100,000 of these and they lean heavily Democrat (see 2018). This means that it is extremely unlikely that Biden does not win Nevada. Fox News Decision Desk said it would take a "four standard deviation event" for it not to be Biden.
Now, would I go with 4 standard deviation? No. But I think it's well under a 10% chance that President Trump holds Arizona.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him. And i think he probably does think he's being cheated. I don't think he really understands the electoral process.
He may very well -be- being cheated. Do you think the Dems wouldn't be raising hell if the situation was reversed?
As for the header, Republicans may be responsible for the electoral loophole that may be being fraudulently exploited, but that doesn't carry the same moral culpability as actually exploiting it.
Crikey, I mean is there a single conspiracy theory going that you don't sign up to in permanent red Sharpie ink?
Mask a pony. You really needed that one explained to you?
I think the question is, why would you hide a horse using cheese?
I don't know, but Y Fenni one tried, I'd advise them to do it very Caerphilly.
Meanwhile the fate of Western Civilisation hangs in the balance...
If you’re asking us to stop the cheesy puns, hard cheddar.
Well, it’s actually why I love the place. 👻
I’ll set one up for you whilst smoothing Biden fan nerves The remaining bits of NV is Vegas itself, where a dem is unlikely to lose his lead. Though maybe his
I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong - many if not most of the polls were also wrong and the strength of Trump's base greater than I had reckoned.
My first thought is not how much has changed but how little and it demonstrates how infrequent transformational elections are.
An initial glance - both Minnesota and New Hampshire saw 4% swings to the Democrats. The West is a Democrat stronghold with huge wins in California, Oregon and Washington. Colorado is now solidly Democrat but in New Mexico it was a smaller swing to Biden and he won by ten points.
Balancing the twenty safe Blue states are the twenty safe Red states - Biden got above 40% in only six of them and even with a uniform 5% additional swing the Democrats wouldn't win any of them.
In a sense, that symbolises the polarisation of the US body politic currently.
So to the eleven "marginal" or "swing" States. I thought Texas would be 2-4 points for Trump but he'd ended up six points ahead. Plenty on here thought Florida would be a hold for the Republicans and so it has proved with Trump extending his 2016 advantage. Ohio didn't move anywhere as much as I expected either and Iowa remains strongly Red.
We do of course have the mail-in ballots to come and it may be enough for Biden to get home but only just and far from the "wave" some, including me, had expected.
It remains to be seen how the Senate and Congressional races end up - it may be that, as I've observed, the more things change the more they stay the same. Obama had to live for a lot of his Presidency with a Senate in Republican hands and it may be Biden will have to learn the vices ad virtues of what the French call "co-habitation".
I suppose the only other observation I have at this time is that polarisation does not equal apathy. More Americans than ever have voted at these elections and some might argue that represents a triumph of the democratic process as a whole. For better or worse, more are engaged and is that such a bad thing for the future?
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
The best evidence available and correct me if I am wrong is that well-off areas still tend to vote Conservative and poorer areas Labour, except in around 120 metropolitan seats where race is a stronger predictor.
No the wealthiest areas in the UK now vote LD proportionally, of the LD seats they are now all well off and wealthy on the whole, from Oxford West and Abingdon to Richmond Park to St Albans and Bath and Kingston Upon Thames and Twickenham, the LDs have no working class seats like the Tories now have in the Red Wall or the Medway Towns or parts of Essex like Harlow and Thurrock.
The Lib Dems only have 11 seats out of 650 some of which aren't all that wealthy. How can they be said to be the representatives of wealthy Britain? Pains me to say it but they are a bit of a fringe. Did they get more votes than the Tories amongst the top 10% of the income scale? Or top 7% which I know you like to attach great significance to.
At election 2019 the Tories only got 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to their national voteshare of 43%, so they did worse than average with the richest voters. The LDs however got 20% of voters earning over £70k compared to their national voteshare of 11% so did better than average with the richest voters.
This US election was also only the second time in a post WW2 presidential election the Democratic candidate has beaten the Republican candidate with the richest voters, the other was 2008 when the highest earners voted for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, though they voted for Romney in 2012 comfortably and more narrowly for Trump in 2016
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him. And i think he probably does think he's being cheated. I don't think he really understands the electoral process.
Nonsense. You don’t have to understand the intricacies to know that votes should get counted. He’s simply a thug.
Yes. Apparently he has Arizona and seems to have Wisconsion so he only needs another 20. Trump needs nearly 60.
That's the point. Yes, Biden still needs a moderate bit of luck somewhere. But Biden only needs to be lucky once. Trump needs to be (probably a bit more) lucky everywhere that's left.
Postal votes splitting 72/27 in Biden's favour. Depends on district I suppose but 1.2m votes would mean another 864k for Biden and 318k for Trump. Depends on the districts though. 546k swing would see Biden home.
Mask a pony. You really needed that one explained to you?
I think the question is, why would you hide a horse using cheese?
I don't know, but Y Fenni one tried, I'd advise them to do it very Caerphilly.
Meanwhile the fate of Western Civilisation hangs in the balance...
If you’re asking us to stop the cheesy puns, hard cheddar.
Well, it’s actually why I love the place. 👻
I’ll set one up for you whilst smoothing Biden fan nerves The remaining bits of NV is Vegas itself, where a dem is unlikely to lose his lead. Though maybe his
Nevada we wont get til tomorrow at least as the counts they have left to do are being done tonight they said. So if GA or NC dont flip and AZ is confirmed for Biden , he's still short even with MI so would mean still no 270 today, !
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
The best evidence available and correct me if I am wrong is that well-off areas still tend to vote Conservative and poorer areas Labour, except in around 120 metropolitan seats where race is a stronger predictor.
No the wealthiest areas in the UK now vote LD proportionally, of the LD seats they are now all well off and wealthy on the whole, from Oxford West and Abingdon to Richmond Park to St Albans and Bath and Kingston Upon Thames and Twickenham, the LDs have no working class seats like the Tories now have in the Red Wall or the Medway Towns or parts of Essex like Harlow and Thurrock.
The Lib Dems only have 11 seats out of 650 some of which aren't all that wealthy. How can they be said to be the representatives of wealthy Britain? Pains me to say it but they are a bit of a fringe. Did they get more votes than the Tories amongst the top 10% of the income scale? Or top 7% which I know you like to attach great significance to.
At election 2019 the Tories only got 40% of voters earning over £70k compared to their national voteshare of 43%, so they did worse than average with the richest voters. The LDs however got 20% of voters earning over £70k compared to their national voteshare of 11% so did better than average with the richest voters.
This US election was also only the second time in a post WW2 presidential election the Democratic candidate has beaten the Republican candidate with the richest voters, the other was 2008 when the highest earners voted for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, though they voted for Romney in 2012 comfortably and more narrowly for Trump in 2016
No, you're including the pensioners in that national vote share.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
Eh? You really think that he isn't saying it because his campaign/legal team etc. is advising him that's what to do? What an interesting view of the workings of politics.
You think his campaign/legal team approved of his "victory claim" last night? Pence had to make a statement to contain the damage. Trump says what Trump says, generally unconstrained by what his advisers tell him. And i think he probably does think he's being cheated. I don't think he really understands the electoral process.
He may very well -be- being cheated. Do you think the Dems wouldn't be raising hell if the situation was reversed?
As for the header, Republicans may be responsible for the electoral loophole that may be being fraudulently exploited, but that doesn't carry the same moral culpability as actually exploiting it.
Crikey, I mean is there a single conspiracy theory going that you don't sign up to in permanent red Sharpie ink?
AZ is still in play, Fox and AP called it very early but no other major networks. Its good for him right now but I'd prefer one or two other calls for it before I relax.
Mail in ballots that are postmarked on or before election day get counted. There are probably 100,000 of these and they lean heavily Democrat (see 2018). This means that it is extremely unlikely that Biden does not win Nevada. Fox News Decision Desk said it would take a "four standard deviation event" for it not to be Biden.
Now, would I go with 4 standard deviation? No. But I think it's well under a 10% chance that President Trump holds Arizona.
Robert do you mean Arizona in your second sentence?
Yes, though he was 5 earlier. I'm not sure what's keeping him below 10 noiw. Will Betfair pay out on declared results, or will it sit back and await all possible legal actions over the next few months?
Comments
And he just needs one of them (as long as NV holds).
Have a look here
Plus at GE19 earnings in seats the Tories gained from Labour last year were actually lower than in seats Labour held
https://www.ft.com/content/48495b7f-b749-407b-9cfe-c1a34f6a9cf5
The vaccination programme, and return to some sort of good times, might have nothing to do with whoever ends up in the White House, but I'm sure that they'll get some reflected glory to bask in. Especially if it all turns out nice from, say late January 2021.
(Assuming MI/WI are a given)
The consensus seems to assume GA and NC are for Trump but not certain. Let's take that.
We honestly don't know re AZ and NV. NV is very close and a lot closer than expected. AZ, the Rs have been racking up votes later on. I get @rcs1000 point re postal votes but I am not sure a 2018 example is useful for 2020 (see Texas) and you are relying on USPS delivering the votes / the court forcing them to
You are therefore left relying on PA. If this was just suburban / city votes, you would say Biden would win. But there are heavily Republican counties with a fair few votes to come.
... This is a fraud on the American public. This is an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. So our goal now is to ensure the integrity for the good of this nation. This is a very big moment. This is a major fraud in our nation. We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at four o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. OK? It’s a very sad moment. To me this is a very sad moment and we will win this. And as far as I’m concerned, we already have won it...
Republicans are happy to insist on the terms of the constitution which award 60,000 voters in one state the same representation as 600,000 in another.
But the constitution also mandates the unambiguous availability of weeks for states to count votes.
Trumps words are the ravings of someone attempting a usurpation.
1876
1888
2000
2016
2020?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1324061055186735104?s=20
She knew what she wanted from an incredibly early stage. She moved effortlessly from the traditional First Lady role to the front line. She was a Senate huge-hitter. She was the first woman to secure the nomination of a major party (or indeed even come close). She did so while stitching it up sufficiently to avoid major moderate opposition. As has been mentioned, she won the popular vote.
Was she perfect? No, clearly not. But you're setting the bar so ridiculously high to be seen as a good political operator that I really don't know how many people could possibly clear it.
Let’s talk Arizona.
I am getting increasingly bewildered about this state and the posting on here is just confusing me more.
The AP has called it for Biden. Fox has called it for Biden. Other networks have not.
What is still outstanding and who does it favour? I can’t seem to find a clear answer. There’s been suggestion that the late votes are being counted and they favour Biden, but then I also read all the results that are yet to come in are from heavy Trump areas.
I am just confused. What is going on?
But, I've had enough of this election.
“When the early votes came through in Sunderland and the North East we were well ahead, but then those Tory bastards defrauded the nation by collecting votes elsewhere”.
I think PA will go to Biden, and he'll hold Michigan and Wisconsin, but it's conceivable he'll lose NV, AZ and not gain either GA or NC either.
Is it still likely to be true, as was speculated a while back, that bookies will lose money if Trump wins?
If "projected" EC votes are tied then Betfair will pay out on whoever is chosen under the Twelfth Amendment. Goodness knows what they will do if a tie is a projected but actual EC votes are NOT tied.
Who do the Mafia prefer to be President?
Thanks Casino, can you show your working on PA sir?
Edit sorry thats not right Biden has 270 then
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/arizona-presidential-election-results-2020-433357
As for the header, Republicans may be responsible for the electoral loophole that may be being fraudulently exploited, but that doesn't carry the same moral culpability as actually exploiting it.
But Ms Bingham — chair of the Vaccine Taskforce — said problems with ramping up manufacturing capacity meant the UK fell well short of this target. She predicted only 4million doses will be available before 2021.
Both Professor Pollard and Ms Bingham warned the first wave of vaccines would not be good enough to allow society to immediately return to normal, scuppering Boris Johnson's promise that 'life will return to normal next summer'.
It's an odd one – Fox, AP and now Politico have called it.
But it's still open with CNN who are traditionally slightly more cautious.
Now, would I go with 4 standard deviation? No. But I think it's well under a 10% chance that President Trump holds Arizona.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-wins-arizonas-11-electoral-votes
(P.S. there is no liquidity so you will have to use a traditional bookie
If it all goes to shit it is not my fault.
I’ll set one up for you whilst smoothing Biden fan nerves
The remaining bits of NV is Vegas itself, where a dem is unlikely to lose his lead. Though maybe his
I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong - many if not most of the polls were also wrong and the strength of Trump's base greater than I had reckoned.
My first thought is not how much has changed but how little and it demonstrates how infrequent transformational elections are.
An initial glance - both Minnesota and New Hampshire saw 4% swings to the Democrats. The West is a Democrat stronghold with huge wins in California, Oregon and Washington. Colorado is now solidly Democrat but in New Mexico it was a smaller swing to Biden and he won by ten points.
Balancing the twenty safe Blue states are the twenty safe Red states - Biden got above 40% in only six of them and even with a uniform 5% additional swing the Democrats wouldn't win any of them.
In a sense, that symbolises the polarisation of the US body politic currently.
So to the eleven "marginal" or "swing" States. I thought Texas would be 2-4 points for Trump but he'd ended up six points ahead. Plenty on here thought Florida would be a hold for the Republicans and so it has proved with Trump extending his 2016 advantage. Ohio didn't move anywhere as much as I expected either and Iowa remains strongly Red.
We do of course have the mail-in ballots to come and it may be enough for Biden to get home but only just and far from the "wave" some, including me, had expected.
It remains to be seen how the Senate and Congressional races end up - it may be that, as I've observed, the more things change the more they stay the same. Obama had to live for a lot of his Presidency with a Senate in Republican hands and it may be Biden will have to learn the vices ad virtues of what the French call "co-habitation".
I suppose the only other observation I have at this time is that polarisation does not equal apathy. More Americans than ever have voted at these elections and some might argue that represents a triumph of the democratic process as a whole. For better or worse, more are engaged and is that such a bad thing for the future?
Any updates from your ARSE?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election#cite_note-359
This US election was also only the second time in a post WW2 presidential election the Democratic candidate has beaten the Republican candidate with the richest voters, the other was 2008 when the highest earners voted for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin, though they voted for Romney in 2012 comfortably and more narrowly for Trump in 2016
I should say, I think they are right to call it – it's just not ubiquitous.
You don’t have to understand the intricacies to know that votes should get counted. He’s simply a thug.
Please correct the maths if I'm wrong on this.