Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
If Fox calls NV they will have to declare Biden the winner of the election
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
You're comparing a national election with ones held in a limited number of states.
In the House election in 2018 too the GOP only got 50 million compared to today's 68 million for Trump, so far Trump has also got 8 million votes more than the 60 million Romney got in 2012 and Trump is on 47.9% of the vote, higher than the 47.2% of the vote Romney got in 2012 as well
Midterms have lower turnout than Presidential elections shocker.
In 2018 the Democrats got 60 million votes for the House, only 12 million less than the 72 million votes Biden is now on.
The 50 million votes the GOP got in the House elections though in 2018 is a far larger 18 million less than the 68 million votes Trump is now on
Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
Yup. I'd be tempted to call it.
I'm really surprised. I thought it was going to flip.
But all the other data showed the same thing, that it was getting worse.
I follow the ONS weekly death figures. I plugged their COVID deaths into Excel to predict the growth. The previous five weeks predicted 983 deaths for the week ending 23 October. The actual number? 978.
The simple model gives the number of deaths for the weeks up to Christmas as:
Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
What you have done there is take a national Presidential election total and compute it against 1/3rd of Senators elected at a time.
The data from this election shows that Donald Trump's share of the vote and raw vote were below those of Republican Senators standing in the same states.
He's a liability not an asset.
You really are crass sometimes.
p.s. by the way I really also need to put you back in your box on this raw numbers last resort of yours. You do know, right, that the population of the US has been growing these past 250 years? Comparing a raw total today with 1960 is ridiculous when there are 100 million more people in the country. https://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html
No, in 2018 too the Republicans got 38% national voteshare on average in the seats they were standing in, as of now Trump is on 47.9%, almost 10% more
Are there any scenarios where Harris wins the betfair market? Not sure why she is getting backed today? Just people getting rid of exposure or is there some complicated scenario involving a tie or something?
Someone on the forum reckoned it might just be a prank. Someone else said maybe if it is a 269-269 tie, which then goes to the states, and if Biden cannot continue then the states might elect Kamala. My guess is a badly-programmed bot is involved; sometimes you see bots trading non-runners in races.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
As with all these things we are trying to balance a set of very unpalatable options.
It is once more the granny hug dilemma and I will say it again:
Total lockdown: granny doesn't get a hug Selective lockdown of vulnerable people: granny doesn't get a hug.
You say but that's not fair. Which sentiment I understand. But while collective punishment has its place in various scenarios, that is no way to run an economy.
Total “lockdown” - granny can be in a bubble with one of her kids’ families, get hugs, and carefully go out to shop. Selective lockdown of the vulnerable - she can’t do either.
Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
I think Nevada is leans Republican Democrat. (And may well become likely in the next hour or so.) North Carolina is likely Republican. Georgia is leans Democrat Arizona is likely Democrat Pennsylvania is likely Democrat.
Are there any scenarios where Harris wins the betfair market? Not sure why she is getting backed today? Just people getting rid of exposure or is there some complicated scenario involving a tie or something?
Someone on the forum reckoned it might just be a prank. Someone else said maybe if it is a 269-269 tie, which then goes to the states, and if Biden cannot continue then the states might elect Kamala. My guess is a badly-programmed bot is involved; sometimes you see bots trading non-runners in races.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Yes, I wonder. Would you have been one of those high-minded Lincoln Republican types or would you have (as they say) "held your nose". The vast majority of "normal" Republicans did the latter. One of the biggest reasons Trump managed to be competitive.
Dunno. At the end of the day we don't pay American taxes and get affected by their domestic policy.
It's easy to be high & mighty when you live aboard, and it's all about noble foreign policy and good behaviour, but when you actually live there..
If most Britains lived in the USA they would likely tip the balance so that neither George W Bush or Trump would ever have been elected anyway, so the GOP would have to look more like McCain and Kasich and Bush Snr and less like it does now to ever win
Whitty still trying to draw a graph steep enough on his powepoint slides.
Takes more effort to massage your data than just plot the real up to date numbers.
You obviously never did an undergraduate physics practical...
In order to fix the data properly, you had to understand what you were doing.
Downer if the equipment turned out to be badly calibrated tho'...
I knew a pair who handed in a perfectly good practical write up for an experiment that turned out to have been broken the year before and not replaced: they had to admit that they had got their results from a guy in the year above and had not gone near the lab...
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
As with all these things we are trying to balance a set of very unpalatable options.
It is once more the granny hug dilemma and I will say it again:
Total lockdown: granny doesn't get a hug Selective lockdown of vulnerable people: granny doesn't get a hug.
You say but that's not fair. Which sentiment I understand. But while collective punishment has its place in various scenarios, that is no way to run an economy.
Total “lockdown” - granny can be in a bubble with one of her kids’ families, get hugs, and carefully go out to shop. Selective lockdown of the vulnerable - she can’t do either.
You mean with one of the kids that spends all day at school with hundreds of other children from non-linked households?
The point is that you can have whatever set of regulations and apply it selectively. So in your example, there's no reason why granny's bubble couldn't include the people in it in total lockdown. That would be an extension and those in her bubble would need to appreciate that.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
What you have done there is take a national Presidential election total and compute it against 1/3rd of Senators elected at a time.
The data from this election shows that Donald Trump's share of the vote and raw vote were below those of Republican Senators standing in the same states.
He's a liability not an asset.
You really are crass sometimes.
p.s. by the way I really also need to put you back in your box on this raw numbers last resort of yours. You do know, right, that the population of the US has been growing these past 250 years? Comparing a raw total today with 1960 is ridiculous when there are 100 million more people in the country. https://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html
No, in 2018 too the Republicans got 38% national voteshare on average in the seats they were standing in, as of now Trump is on 47.9%, almost 10% more
And how is he doing in just the states that had senatorial elections in '18?
Anyone else notice how many ers and ums Johnson does? He is terrible! His fanbois tell us he is a good speaker. Surely someone should tell him. He regularly says er er er er, yes four ers in a row. Not only is he a crap leader he is also crap at presenting . He should stick to writing semi-witty polemics, it is all he is good at.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
That's one of your daftest yet. On two thirds of states hold senate elections.
Trump's margin of loss, though, is going to be bigger than Romney's 3.9% miss in 2012.
That's true. He's just a built a more competitive electoral coalition where it counts.
I mean, who did Romney really excite? He oozed privileged rich man who wants to make things easier for him and his mates.
Romney basically combined a watered down version of Goldwater's policy with Bush Snr's elitist background but lacked the former's oratory or the latter's centrism.
His convention in 2012 was the dullest I have ever seen for a GOP nominee as was his speech and that includes Bob Dole's, say what you like about Trump but he knows how to fire up an audience and have exciting rallies and conventions.
Romney is a decent enough Senator and was a reasonable governor but was not a great presidential candidate
FYI, and it also goes back to what @TSE said before re the courts. Ignore if you want.
Legally, it looks there will be different attack routes here for the Republicans. @RCS1000 is right, trying to deal with several challenges at once causes problems so the approaches will be staggered. In PA, the immediate focus will be to stop the counts to create a “breather” in terms of Trump’s vote being eroded. That gives time to the campaign. Afterwards, the focus will be to restart the SC case which was tied 4-4 and hope to win it with Comey Barrett in place (point: I think they will – no reason either side should change their vote and I think Comey Barrett will come down with the Conservative majority).
In Wisconsin, the Republicans, for the moment, seem happy to go through the recount motions as mandated by law. It’s following due process and they will want to focus elsewhere. They could start making claims about electoral fraud in Milwaukee but I expect that to be low key for now although it could ramp up. There probably will be some low key legal challenges about how votes were dealt with.
Georgia, it’s clear it will be about whittling down leads by casting aspersions here and there on how the votes were counted and tallied. In such a close race, it makes a difference.
The main attack for now seems to be Michigan. As well as what @DAlexander posted (which could be clerical issues), there is a video doing the rounds from Project Veritas (yes, I know....) about a Michigan postal worker claiming his supervisor ordered him to re-date ballots received after the cut off date. 7.5m+ views so far apparently.
The strategy looks to be to go in hard on fraud. MI is favourable to Trump legally because its Supreme Court is Republican and has given a bloody nose to Whitmer before. Also, there will be satisfaction for him in accusing Whitmer of rigging the process.
The postal worker point is also important. It's difficult for the Federals to get involved with state elections, although they can under certain circumstances. However, tampering with the mail is a federal offence. Remedy wise, there is probably little they can do but it gives an excuse to launch an investigation to support claims the election is rigged.
One other point re the SC. Many have said on here the SCs are not beholden to Trump. To a degree yes but, from my information, ACB was rushed through the Senate because the WH did not trust Roberts to side with them in any dispute on the election. That suggests they think Kavanaugh / Gorsuch will (very likely for Kavanaugh) and they know ACB will do as well.
If this is how the election is won, we are in the realms of Belarus. Truly shocking.
Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
I think it may be because of this 'drop in box' mail vote thing. It seems there are a lot of the votes left are of those type which had shown Trump doing well even in Clark as they are a bit like on the day voters, however clearly the mail votes that are still left in Clark favour Biden, so Nate may well be right
Fox won't be calling NV as then they will have to call the election!
Silver agrees. He has now posted: "A little inside baseball, but this dynamic may affect how different networks are handling Nevada. If you’ve called Arizona (which I don’t think you should have!), then a Nevada call would give Biden the election. But Nevada is probably callable at this point!"
Re: Trump under/overperforming GOP senators. It's possible for both to be true (eg. if wondering what happens in Georgia Run off).
1) Trump could bring huge numbers of fanatical people to the polls, who, because they are there, vote for the GOP Senate candidate at the same time. But Senate candidate then overall does better vs Democrat than Trump vs Biden because of a number of moderate Republicans who lend Biden their vote (but vote for GOP Senate candidate).
2) In the Run off there is no Trump, so many of the fanatical Trump supporters don't turn up. However if all Democrat/Biden supporters turn up anyway, then the Democrat will now be in a position to win.
So in scenario 1 the GOP candidate out performs Trump and beats the Democrat opponent.
Scenario 2 the GOP candidate loses Trumpists (who don't turn up) and loses.
It's very easy to see if Trump is outperforming his Senators.
Look at the vote share in States where there's an incumbent Republican Senator, and compare that to Trump's share.
My guess is that incumbent Trump has underperformed pretty much every incumbent Republican.
EXCEPT the hapless Martha McSally in Arizona, who was never elected in the first place. (And possibly Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.)
I still find it hard to believe they could have chosen someone so bad at elections. From a CV perspective, though, she was fairly impressive.
Well this is the general problem with politics - governing comptently and winning elections are two VERY different skill sets. Our system implictly assumes anyone good at the latter will be good at the former.
Are there any scenarios where Harris wins the betfair market? Not sure why she is getting backed today? Just people getting rid of exposure or is there some complicated scenario involving a tie or something?
Someone on the forum reckoned it might just be a prank. Someone else said maybe if it is a 269-269 tie, which then goes to the states, and if Biden cannot continue then the states might elect Kamala. My guess is a badly-programmed bot is involved; sometimes you see bots trading non-runners in races.
300 now and incoming....
No, if there has to be a contingent election, it will be up to the members of the new House of Representatives to choose the President with state house delegations voting en block not individually.
The Senate will choose the Vice President and they do vote individually, the new House term starts 3rd of Jan although that's a Sunday so they might meet for the first time on Monday the 4th.
There seems to be a big mismatch between the State odds and Biden's presidency odds.
Currently Biden's probabiity on latest matched Betfair prices are:
Georgia 59% NC 20% Arizona 74% Penn 85% Nevada 92%
Of the 32 combinations of the five states, 27 are winners for Biden and 5 (unlikely ones) are for Trump.
The State probabilities imply Biden has a 98% probability of winning the Presidency i.e. 1.02, but he is 1.14 on Betfair.
So either the State odds are too short on Biden (bet on Trump on the States) or the Presidency odds are too short on Biden (bet on Biden on the Presidency).
FYI, and it also goes back to what @TSE said before re the courts. Ignore if you want.
Legally, it looks there will be different attack routes here for the Republicans. @RCS1000 is right, trying to deal with several challenges at once causes problems so the approaches will be staggered. In PA, the immediate focus will be to stop the counts to create a “breather” in terms of Trump’s vote being eroded. That gives time to the campaign. Afterwards, the focus will be to restart the SC case which was tied 4-4 and hope to win it with Comey Barrett in place (point: I think they will – no reason either side should change their vote and I think Comey Barrett will come down with the Conservative majority).
In Wisconsin, the Republicans, for the moment, seem happy to go through the recount motions as mandated by law. It’s following due process and they will want to focus elsewhere. They could start making claims about electoral fraud in Milwaukee but I expect that to be low key for now although it could ramp up. There probably will be some low key legal challenges about how votes were dealt with.
Georgia, it’s clear it will be about whittling down leads by casting aspersions here and there on how the votes were counted and tallied. In such a close race, it makes a difference.
The main attack for now seems to be Michigan. As well as what @DAlexander posted (which could be clerical issues), there is a video doing the rounds from Project Veritas (yes, I know....) about a Michigan postal worker claiming his supervisor ordered him to re-date ballots received after the cut off date. 7.5m+ views so far apparently.
The strategy looks to be to go in hard on fraud. MI is favourable to Trump legally because its Supreme Court is Republican and has given a bloody nose to Whitmer before. Also, there will be satisfaction for him in accusing Whitmer of rigging the process.
The postal worker point is also important. It's difficult for the Federals to get involved with state elections, although they can under certain circumstances. However, tampering with the mail is a federal offence. Remedy wise, there is probably little they can do but it gives an excuse to launch an investigation to support claims the election is rigged.
One other point re the SC. Many have said on here the SCs are not beholden to Trump. To a degree yes but, from my information, ACB was rushed through the Senate because the WH did not trust Roberts to side with them in any dispute on the election. That suggests they think Kavanaugh / Gorsuch will (very likely for Kavanaugh) and they know ACB will do as well.
I'm pretty sure you're right about the five Death Eaters on the court stealing the election for Trump were it close enough. The odds of their trying to do so when the margin looks as great as it's likely to be are slim indeed.
Fox won't be calling NV as then they will have to call the election!
Silver agrees. He has now posted: "A little inside baseball, but this dynamic may affect how different networks are handling Nevada. If you’ve called Arizona (which I don’t think you should have!), then a Nevada call would give Biden the election. But Nevada is probably callable at this point!"
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
That also suggests they could pick up some SNP constituency seats in the central belt next year with Tory and LD tactical votes
Yet if Mr Starmer has said he's open to indyref 2, precisely in order to peel off those pro-indy but previously labour voters ...
SLab will pick up near zero Yes voters in Scotland, to win seats from the SNP they have to win Tory and LD Unionist tactical votes in the central belt.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
Anyone thinking of following the bot and betting on Kamala Harris for next president would be well advised to read the rules of the Betfair market. Tl;dr: it's not a market on the next president.
Anyone thinking of following the bot and betting on Kamala Harris for next president would be well advised to read the rules of the Betfair market. Tl;dr: it's not a market on the next president.
Fox won't be calling NV as then they will have to call the election!
Silver agrees. He has now posted: "A little inside baseball, but this dynamic may affect how different networks are handling Nevada. If you’ve called Arizona (which I don’t think you should have!), then a Nevada call would give Biden the election. But Nevada is probably callable at this point!"
So they just uncall AZ
I saw on the US news yesterday when Fox declared Arizona early which set Trump off on his rage, he spoke to Murdoch demanding he have Fox uncall it but was told no.
There seems to be a big mismatch between the State odds and Biden's presidency odds.
Currently Biden's probabiity on latest matched Betfair prices are:
Georgia 59% NC 20% Arizona 74% Penn 85% Nevada 92%
Of the 32 combinations of the five states, 27 are winners for Biden and 5 (unlikely ones) are for Trump.
The State probabilities imply Biden has a 98% probability of winning the Presidency i.e. 1.02, but he is 1.14 on Betfair.
So either the State odds are too short on Biden (bet on Trump on the States) or the Presidency odds are too short on Biden (bet on Biden on the Presidency).
I think that a small nibble on Biden in North Carolina is worth it. There are quite a few mail in ballots that will be recieved in the next week, and we know they break very heavily for Biden. (Indeed, trading the postal - in person splits was one of the highlights of election evening.)
Anyone thinking of following the bot and betting on Kamala Harris for next president would be well advised to read the rules of the Betfair market. Tl;dr: it's not a market on the next president.
Indeed, one of my more profitable strategies was to lay the likes of Pelosi and Harris, it was why I was so cross when Betfair suspended the market when Trump caught the plague.
If anyone's going to be imprisoned it really ought to be the scumbag vice-chancellors and their cronies who lured all these kids into their revenue-generating trap in the first place. These issues would not have arisen if most of the students had been told to study from home.
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
That also suggests they could pick up some SNP constituency seats in the central belt next year with Tory and LD tactical votes
Yet if Mr Starmer has said he's open to indyref 2, precisely in order to peel off those pro-indy but previously labour voters ...
SLab will pick up near zero Yes voters in Scotland, to win seats from the SNP they have to win Tory and LD Unionist tactical votes in the central belt.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
On those figures, SCUP is already getting confined to the Brexiter and Unionist bitter-enders, and the LDs to the shy Tories and the special constituencies. The potentyial Labour votes are pretty much all in the SNP, Greens or LDs - and fewer of those in a FPTP (forget Holyrood for now). Ian Murray is sui generis; nobody else in SLAB pulled off that trick last time, admittedly under Mr Corbyn - but then nobody seriously believed Mr Corbyn would win anyway, so it was safe to vote for Mr Murray and co. Now Mr Starmer is a far greater existential threat to the Tories.
Anyone thinking of following the bot and betting on Kamala Harris for next president would be well advised to read the rules of the Betfair market. Tl;dr: it's not a market on the next president.
With the amounts matched they'll be quite careful. Their rules are clearly the defining matter, but reasonable expectation based on the market description is a very close second.
They may just have to void the market and look like fools if it gets complicated.
There seems to be a big mismatch between the State odds and Biden's presidency odds.
Currently Biden's probabiity on latest matched Betfair prices are:
Georgia 59% NC 20% Arizona 74% Penn 85% Nevada 92%
Of the 32 combinations of the five states, 27 are winners for Biden and 5 (unlikely ones) are for Trump.
The State probabilities imply Biden has a 98% probability of winning the Presidency i.e. 1.02, but he is 1.14 on Betfair.
So either the State odds are too short on Biden (bet on Trump on the States) or the Presidency odds are too short on Biden (bet on Biden on the Presidency).
I think that a small nibble on Biden in North Carolina is worth it. There are quite a few mail in ballots that will be recieved in the next week, and we know they break very heavily for Biden. (Indeed, trading the postal - in person splits was one of the highlights of election evening.)
I left my NC position running, in hope. Having visited Asheville last year, they don’t like Trump at all there. Of course I know it’s not representative, but still.
There seems to be a big mismatch between the State odds and Biden's presidency odds.
Currently Biden's probabiity on latest matched Betfair prices are:
Georgia 59% NC 20% Arizona 74% Penn 85% Nevada 92%
Of the 32 combinations of the five states, 27 are winners for Biden and 5 (unlikely ones) are for Trump.
The State probabilities imply Biden has a 98% probability of winning the Presidency i.e. 1.02, but he is 1.14 on Betfair.
So either the State odds are too short on Biden (bet on Trump on the States) or the Presidency odds are too short on Biden (bet on Biden on the Presidency).
Agreed, Nevada changes havent filtered through to the main market yet. But I would also counter that court cases are creating some weird related contingencies which make your approach problematic.
If Trump is one or two states short then its plausible enough for the Supreme Court to make a spurious decision or two. If he is 3-5 states short then its much less likely and the GOP might not even want to support Trump in it. Court cases would also stop at a winner so if Trump wins this, he will only win by 1 state exactly.
So I would have a pro Trump adjustment in the scenarios where he is 1 state short, possibly 2 states short. (Obviously that creates an opposite impact where Biden is winning most of the remaining states).
Comments
Completely forgot all about it!
The 50 million votes the GOP got in the House elections though in 2018 is a far larger 18 million less than the 68 million votes Trump is now on
I'm really surprised. I thought it was going to flip.
So you somehow need Dem Georgia, Trump the rest and then Republican states in the house to vote Harris???
The simple model gives the number of deaths for the weeks up to Christmas as:
30-Oct-20 - 1,440
06-Nov-20 - 2,117
13-Nov-20 - 3,111
20-Nov-20 - 4,572
27-Nov-20 - 6,719
04-Dec-20 - 9,874
11-Dec-20 - 14,511
18-Dec-20 - 21,326
25-Dec-20 - 31,341
It's easy to see why they felt the need to act.
Downer if the equipment turned out to be badly calibrated tho'...
Selective lockdown of the vulnerable - she can’t do either.
Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes goes to Biden! - He's close now.
(BBC)
I think Nevada is leans Republican Democrat. (And may well become likely in the next hour or so.)
North Carolina is likely Republican.
Georgia is leans Democrat
Arizona is likely Democrat
Pennsylvania is likely Democrat.
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
They posted 12,189 votes with biden maintaining a votes lead of 11,787 votes statewide.
https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/more-nevada-votes-coming-in-biden-maintains-lead-20201105
The point is that you can have whatever set of regulations and apply it selectively. So in your example, there's no reason why granny's bubble couldn't include the people in it in total lockdown. That would be an extension and those in her bubble would need to appreciate that.
Yikes.
His convention in 2012 was the dullest I have ever seen for a GOP nominee as was his speech and that includes Bob Dole's, say what you like about Trump but he knows how to fire up an audience and have exciting rallies and conventions.
Romney is a decent enough Senator and was a reasonable governor but was not a great presidential candidate
The (a) solution? Pay people a lot of money to self-isolate. Earn £500/week? Pay them £750.
If it makes self-isolation work then it will be worth every penny.
Manchester University Sparks Panic After Students 'Fenced In' For Covid Security
Teenagers left in tears after not being told in advance about construction of "prison".
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/student-panic-as-manchester-university-halls-are-fenced-in-for-covid-security_uk_5fa420c1c5b65f36890f5ff1
"A little inside baseball, but this dynamic may affect how different networks are handling Nevada. If you’ve called Arizona (which I don’t think you should have!), then a Nevada call would give Biden the election. But Nevada is probably callable at this point!"
1) Trump could bring huge numbers of fanatical people to the polls, who, because they are there, vote for the GOP Senate candidate at the same time. But Senate candidate then overall does better vs Democrat than Trump vs Biden because of a number of moderate Republicans who lend Biden their vote (but vote for GOP Senate candidate).
2) In the Run off there is no Trump, so many of the fanatical Trump supporters don't turn up. However if all Democrat/Biden supporters turn up anyway, then the Democrat will now be in a position to win.
So in scenario 1 the GOP candidate out performs Trump and beats the Democrat opponent.
Scenario 2 the GOP candidate loses Trumpists (who don't turn up) and loses.
I have had the £40 I won on the election on here at 260 though!
The Senate will choose the Vice President and they do vote individually, the new House term starts 3rd of Jan although that's a Sunday so they might meet for the first time on Monday the 4th.
Currently Biden's probabiity on latest matched Betfair prices are:
Georgia 59%
NC 20%
Arizona 74%
Penn 85%
Nevada 92%
Of the 32 combinations of the five states, 27 are winners for Biden and 5 (unlikely ones) are for Trump.
The State probabilities imply Biden has a 98% probability of winning the Presidency i.e. 1.02, but he is 1.14 on Betfair.
So either the State odds are too short on Biden (bet on Trump on the States) or the Presidency odds are too short on Biden (bet on Biden on the Presidency).
The odds of their trying to do so when the margin looks as great as it's likely to be are slim indeed.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
Only 12th Amendment Presidencies count, not 25th Amendment ones.
We're long past Harris winning under the 12th Amendment in 2020.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1324405696914460679?s=20
One of the state senators elected somewhere died in early October, it was still him that was elected.
Poll - Scottish Independence Referendum
“Should Scotland be an independent country?”
Yes 54% (+1) No 46% (-1)
1,071 respondents, residents, aged 16+, fieldwork 28 Oct - 4 Nov 2020. Changes w/ 2-7 Sep 2020
So Harris would almost certainly get the votes transferred to her, although that isn’t quite what happened to Greeley.
They may just have to void the market and look like fools if it gets complicated.
Note he praises the French unusually for banning postal voting as he blames alleged postal vote fraud for a likely Trump defeat
If Trump is one or two states short then its plausible enough for the Supreme Court to make a spurious decision or two. If he is 3-5 states short then its much less likely and the GOP might not even want to support Trump in it. Court cases would also stop at a winner so if Trump wins this, he will only win by 1 state exactly.
So I would have a pro Trump adjustment in the scenarios where he is 1 state short, possibly 2 states short. (Obviously that creates an opposite impact where Biden is winning most of the remaining states).