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."
Bit of a long-odds gamble going on over at betfair -Someone’s betting £1000’s on Kamala Harris. Into 750/1
I really dont get it, if there is an EC tie it is possible, but even if Biden died wouldnt he still be the one to win the EC vote?
No. If Biden died (as happened to the losing candidate in 1872) he can’t be voted for in the EC as he’s ineligible to be President.
So Harris would almost certainly get the votes transferred to her, although that isn’t quite what happened to Greeley.
Yes, but: "This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election."
Is it possible the polls weren't that wrong after all? If you add all the late votes still being counted, add all the votes lost in the post (not sure how to find out how many) , all the postal votes rejected for one reason or another (are there any figures for this yet)?
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.
The strategy will be to create doubt about the veracity of the votes. Detroit is the easiest one to start with given its reputation and Philly they have another route to work through with the SC. All it takes is a few instances of some evidence to emerge and you have issues. Whitmer is not exactly going to be quiet either which I think would suit Trump well.
If things are tight in GA, expect to hear calls from the R (if they are behind) that military votes need to be counted - hard to argue against that.
Bear in mind the election has not created an impression of a country dying to get rid of the Republicans and Trump. A lot of people just want to go back to normal and the country accepted 2000.
I disagree with the SC call. Kavanaugh is in the D's firing line to be shot and ACB knows that, if he gets chopped, she will probably be next. So I think, if push came to shove, and it meant Trump being kept in, they would go for that
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.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
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).
You are not allowing for the possibility of litigation
He'd have to be ill pretty quickly. These are the rules, and it looks as though the conditions might be filled within the next couple of days. This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Doesn't even appear to require every state to be called, so long as there's a clear majority.
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....
It is a £500 million market and almost certainly a lot of that is trading by bots, even if the Harris move was kicked off by actual people. On the plus side, I think I backed her early in the primaries, so fingers crossed! My reading of the Betfair rules is that unless there is a tie, the market is settled on who won most EC delegates in Tuesday's election, which is either Biden or Trump, even if the next President might actually be Pence or Harris.
Bit of a long-odds gamble going on over at betfair -Someone’s betting £1000’s on Kamala Harris. Into 750/1
I really dont get it, if there is an EC tie it is possible, but even if Biden died wouldnt he still be the one to win the EC vote?
No. If Biden died (as happened to the losing candidate in 1872) he can’t be voted for in the EC as he’s ineligible to be President.
So Harris would almost certainly get the votes transferred to her, although that isn’t quite what happened to Greeley.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market." (The rules expand beyond this for full disclosure check the site)
It is projected EC votes not actual EC votes and Harris has 0 projected EC votes, and imo would do even if Biden died.
I bow to your greater constitutional knowledge and Betfair are certainly capable of not taking their own rules literally so caveat emptor.
Here are my slightly controversial forecasts for the rest of the results:
(1) The biggest margin of the Biden pickups (percentage-wise) will be in Arizona, where he'll win by at least 3% (2) North Carolina is going to be very close. It's all mail in to come, and we know they skew very Democrat.
I doubt the riots did change many (if any) minds. I suspect those 88% skew very heavily towards existing Trump supporters.
I'd also point out that Trump has done worse in the places nearest the riots, and better in states without major urban centres. Indeed, the very people you'd expect to be most swayed - the suburbs of these big conurbations - have seen by far the biggest swings away from Trump.
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).
Very hard to model and wouldn't be transparent.
I prefer to do the vanilla uncorrelated calculations. You can then make any adjustments for court cases in your head and not run the risk of "the computer says".
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).
Very hard to model and wouldn't be transparent.
I prefer to do the vanilla uncorrelated calculations. You can then make any adjustments for court cases in your head and not run the risk of "the computer says".
Imagine being a Trump lawyer being ordered to go to the Supreme Court and argue for fraud using evidence based on stuff that the President has read on Twitter
Here are my slightly controversial forecasts for the rest of the results:
(1) The biggest margin of the Biden pickups (percentage-wise) will be in Arizona, where he'll win by at least 3% (2) North Carolina is going to be very close. It's all mail in to come, and we know they skew very Democrat.
Wouldn't it be interesting if Biden won all the states still in play (not including Alaska!), with the result that Florida was the only state whose winner wasn't predicted correctly by the polls!
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.
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).
You are not allowing for the possibility of litigation
Judges are going to be REALLY wary of overturning democratic elections without overwhelming evidence.
My bet is that the Supreme Court will decline to hear anything election related. (And remember Roberts has a lot of power regarding what is heard and what is not.)
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.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
Hmm. You're still forgetting the Greens, and the folk who tend to vote socialist but Yes. And the Edinburgh constituencies at least can be very mixed indeed socially. I'd want to see more hard evidencve that tac tical voting wouild work when it has not worked before for anyone other than Ian Murray - who has a very, erm, distinctive attitude in his advising people how to vote, or not vote, for the SNP. But plenty of time yet.
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).
You are not allowing for the possibility of litigation
I assume that possibility would affect the State probabilities too? If there is a legal challenge wouldn't Betfair wait until it is resolved?
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).
Very hard to model and wouldn't be transparent.
I prefer to do the vanilla uncorrelated calculations. You can then make any adjustments for court cases in your head and not run the risk of "the computer says".
Agreed - but Trump should be more likely to win than a per state calculation suggests as if wins it will be skewed artificially to a 1 state winning margin.
Separately the main market seems to take a while after state markets move, and the Nevada shift to Biden is only now becoming reflected.
I doubt the riots did change many (if any) minds. I suspect those 88% skew very heavily towards existing Trump supporters.
I'd also point out that Trump has done worse in the places nearest the riots, and better in states without major urban centres. Indeed, the very people you'd expect to be most swayed - the suburbs of these big conurbations - have seen by far the biggest swings away from Trump.
Might have turned out a few extra Trump voters, though. And proximity (as we see with the immigration effect in the UK) has little correlation with concerns.
Bit of a long-odds gamble going on over at betfair -Someone’s betting £1000’s on Kamala Harris. Into 750/1
I really dont get it, if there is an EC tie it is possible, but even if Biden died wouldnt he still be the one to win the EC vote?
No. If Biden died (as happened to the losing candidate in 1872) he can’t be voted for in the EC as he’s ineligible to be President.
So Harris would almost certainly get the votes transferred to her, although that isn’t quite what happened to Greeley.
"This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market." (The rules expand beyond this for full disclosure check the site)
It is projected EC votes not actual EC votes and Harris has 0 projected EC votes, and imo would do even if Biden died.
I bow to your greater constitutional knowledge and Betfair are certainly capable of not taking their own rules literally so caveat emptor.
Ah. I thought you were talking about what would happen, not about the rules of the market.
Might depend a bit on when they settle too. If Biden died next week, then he still wouldn’t have an EC win guaranteed.
I doubt the riots did change many (if any) minds. I suspect those 88% skew very heavily towards existing Trump supporters.
I'd also point out that Trump has done worse in the places nearest the riots, and better in states without major urban centres. Indeed, the very people you'd expect to be most swayed - the suburbs of these big conurbations - have seen by far the biggest swings away from Trump.
Bear in mind Trump has won new support from minorities he didn't have before in whose name these riots were made.
I've also heard this argument made before with immigration: the thing is that people fear it spreading to their area and vote for someone who'll take a strong line to keep things stable.
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
Where's your ambition gone?
NEW @Survation 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
Only 47% Yes including undecideds
The grand slam of the polls out today , SNP just keep going up , constituency up , regional list up , independence , up and Tories circling the drain and seeking to reach the depths of the Lib Dems, DROSS will get them there. Survation. @Survation · 2h NEW @Survation Poll –Scottish Parliament, Regional List vote
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.
The strategy will be to create doubt about the veracity of the votes. Detroit is the easiest one to start with given its reputation and Philly they have another route to work through with the SC. All it takes is a few instances of some evidence to emerge and you have issues. Whitmer is not exactly going to be quiet either which I think would suit Trump well.
If things are tight in GA, expect to hear calls from the R (if they are behind) that military votes need to be counted - hard to argue against that.
Bear in mind the election has not created an impression of a country dying to get rid of the Republicans and Trump. A lot of people just want to go back to normal and the country accepted 2000.
I disagree with the SC call. Kavanaugh is in the D's firing line to be shot and ACB knows that, if he gets chopped, she will probably be next. So I think, if push came to shove, and it meant Trump being kept in, they would go for that
Rubbish. The Dems can’t fire a SC justice. That would require impeachment and they don’t have the Senate votes. The SC is a job for life given the makeup of the Senate these days. In fact an SC Justice has never been removed. The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. The Justices are not going to fear Biden - unless you literally think he is going to shoot one of them.
This election like a really long hard Mortal Kombat game where you finally have the Boss on the ropes at the end and then you see a message flashing up saying, "Finish Him!", and execute a complex move on the keypad to win in a flourish.
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).
Very hard to model and wouldn't be transparent.
I prefer to do the vanilla uncorrelated calculations. You can then make any adjustments for court cases in your head and not run the risk of "the computer says".
Agreed - but Trump should be more likely to win than a per state calculation suggests as if wins it will be skewed artificially to a 1 state winning margin.
Separately the main market seems to take a while after state markets move, and the Nevada shift to Biden is only now becoming reflected.
I agree with your last sentence. Biden has come in from 1.14 to 1.11 while we've been talking about this. You've got to be quick!
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.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
Hmm. You're still forgetting the Greens, and the folk who tend to vote socialist but Yes. And the Edinburgh constituencies at least can be very mixed indeed socially. I'd want to see more hard evidencve that tac tical voting wouild work when it has not worked before for anyone other than Ian Murray - who has a very, erm, distinctive attitude in his advising people how to vote, or not vote, for the SNP. But plenty of time yet.
The Greens are irrelevant in constituency seats, they get almost all their votes on the list. The hard left socialists who vote Yes will also vote SNP on the constituency vote but socialist on the list so neither can be won over by SLab at the constituency seat level.
Apart from Edinburgh West which is a LD v SNP battle and Edinburgh Central which is Ruth Davidson's seat I would agree every Edinburgh seat too at Holyrood (and indeed Westminster) is an SNP v SLab battle where SLab also has to win Unionist tactical votes.
Murray has shown the way which is why he has a stonking 22% majority in Edinburgh South and is the only SLab MP, other SLab candidates must follow his lead and start appealing to Tories and LDs
The head of the ONS has literally said that the nation's top scientists have justified plunging the country into an economically catastrophic lockdown based knowingly on out-of-date and misleading data that doesn't justify the case made. This should quite clearly be a resigning matter, in any sensible interpretation of this. Simply "apologising" shouldn't be enough.
But it won't be because the vast majority of the "sensible" criticism of Government policy comes from the angle of "lockdown hasn't been implemented quickly enough" and a general evidence light feeling that "we should be locking down as much as possible". It's an absolute scandal.
Even if actually the policy is sound, and the Government is doing the right thing, it absolutely should be being done on the basis of the most accurate and up-to-date evidence, and that evidence should be offered as transparently as possible.
The head of the ONS has literally said that the nation's top scientists have justified plunging the country into an economically catastrophic lockdown based knowingly on out-of-date and misleading data that doesn't justify the case made. This should quite clearly be a resigning matter, in any sensible interpretation of this. Simply "apologising" shouldn't be enough.
But it won't be because the vast majority of the "sensible" criticism of Government policy comes from the angle of "lockdown hasn't been implemented quickly enough" and a general evidence light feeling that "we should be locking down as much as possible". It's an absolute scandal.
Even if actually the policy is sound, and the Government is doing the right thing, it absolutely should be being done on the basis of the most accurate and up-to-date evidence, and that evidence should be offered as transparently as possible.
Please post this on the new thread, everyone needs to read it.
This election like a really long hard Mortal Kombat game where you finally have the Boss on the ropes at the end and then you see a message flashing up saying, "Finish Him!", and execute a complex move on the keypad to win in a flourish.
Biden: Finish Him.
Or like one of those horror movies where the monster appears to be killed several times, but keeps springing back to life.
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.)
In which case I'm fishing out my landslide prediction! I still have it somewhere.
Jon Sopel is hopeless and irritating.. No information whatsoever. Just attempts to build up the drama. Why cant all BBC political journalists be like the quite excellent Emily Maitliss and treat their audience like intelligent human beings and not soap obsessed morons.
NB. The BBC though are not as bad as their commercial competitors
I doubt the riots did change many (if any) minds. I suspect those 88% skew very heavily towards existing Trump supporters.
I'd also point out that Trump has done worse in the places nearest the riots, and better in states without major urban centres. Indeed, the very people you'd expect to be most swayed - the suburbs of these big conurbations - have seen by far the biggest swings away from Trump.
With immigration the biggest concern in areas without high BAME populations
I suspect riots look worse from Auburn Hills than they do from inner city Detroit
Comments
Best result of the day so far
If things are tight in GA, expect to hear calls from the R (if they are behind) that military votes need to be counted - hard to argue against that.
Bear in mind the election has not created an impression of a country dying to get rid of the Republicans and Trump. A lot of people just want to go back to normal and the country accepted 2000.
I disagree with the SC call. Kavanaugh is in the D's firing line to be shot and ACB knows that, if he gets chopped, she will probably be next. So I think, if push came to shove, and it meant Trump being kept in, they would go for that
50,000 to be counted
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
These are the rules, and it looks as though the conditions might be filled within the next couple of days.
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Doesn't even appear to require every state to be called, so long as there's a clear majority.
It is projected EC votes not actual EC votes and Harris has 0 projected EC votes, and imo would do even if Biden died.
I bow to your greater constitutional knowledge and Betfair are certainly capable of not taking their own rules literally so caveat emptor.
(1) The biggest margin of the Biden pickups (percentage-wise) will be in Arizona, where he'll win by at least 3%
(2) North Carolina is going to be very close. It's all mail in to come, and we know they skew very Democrat.
I doubt the riots did change many (if any) minds. I suspect those 88% skew very heavily towards existing Trump supporters.
I'd also point out that Trump has done worse in the places nearest the riots, and better in states without major urban centres. Indeed, the very people you'd expect to be most swayed - the suburbs of these big conurbations - have seen by far the biggest swings away from Trump.
I prefer to do the vanilla uncorrelated calculations. You can then make any adjustments for court cases in your head and not run the risk of "the computer says".
My bet is that the Supreme Court will decline to hear anything election related. (And remember Roberts has a lot of power regarding what is heard and what is not.)
Separately the main market seems to take a while after state markets move, and the Nevada shift to Biden is only now becoming reflected.
And proximity (as we see with the immigration effect in the UK) has little correlation with concerns.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/TRF_Stories/status/1324403387362873344?s=20
Might depend a bit on when they settle too. If Biden died next week, then he still wouldn’t have an EC win guaranteed.
I've also heard this argument made before with immigration: the thing is that people fear it spreading to their area and vote for someone who'll take a strong line to keep things stable.
Survation.
@Survation
·
2h
NEW @Survation
Poll –Scottish Parliament, Regional List vote
SNP 43% (+2)
LAB 19% (+1)
CON 17% (-1)
GRN 10% (-)
LD 7% (-1)
BXP 2% (-)
UKIP 1% (-)
OTH 1% (-)
1,071 respondents, residents of Scotland, aged 16+, fieldwork 28 Oct - 4 Nov 2020. Changes w/ 2-7 Sep 2020.
NEW THREAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjyDdE2WF3M
Biden: Finish Him.
Apart from Edinburgh West which is a LD v SNP battle and Edinburgh Central which is Ruth Davidson's seat I would agree every Edinburgh seat too at Holyrood (and indeed Westminster) is an SNP v SLab battle where SLab also has to win Unionist tactical votes.
Murray has shown the way which is why he has a stonking 22% majority in Edinburgh South and is the only SLab MP, other SLab candidates must follow his lead and start appealing to Tories and LDs
But it won't be because the vast majority of the "sensible" criticism of Government policy comes from the angle of "lockdown hasn't been implemented quickly enough" and a general evidence light feeling that "we should be locking down as much as possible". It's an absolute scandal.
Even if actually the policy is sound, and the Government is doing the right thing, it absolutely should be being done on the basis of the most accurate and up-to-date evidence, and that evidence should be offered as transparently as possible.
NB. The BBC though are not as bad as their commercial competitors
He’s just lost £10k on backing Trump too!
I suspect riots look worse from Auburn Hills than they do from inner city Detroit