I have no idea whatsoever why he is lauded on here as some kind of seer.
(As polite a chap as he is)
It's Thursday night. We still don't have a winner. Mr Ed was nearer the mark than all those here who were only arguing over how big Biden's margin would - bigly or yuge...
So I cut him some slack.
(I of course called the Biden win at one minute past midnight, Wednesday morning. But I expressed no opinion as to how tight it would be.)
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Trump case dismissed in Michigan. Filed at the wrong time, against the wrong person.
How incompetent are these loons?
Trump said file lots of lawsuits, so they're just randomly filing lots of hopeless lawsuits.
The important thing is for him to be able to say there were cases about voter fraud regardless of the outcome, and if any succeed in however minimal a way, that will be the fodder for stating there were massive problems.
Be nice to know the uk numbers but apparently not possible to do this...
58,000 cases implies 3000-5000 new hospitalisations, and ~1000 in ICU? In one day
58k tested cases in France translates to around 200-230k cases in real terms with around 40% symptomatic. France is heading into the 1k deaths per day range in case terms. I do wonder why they didn't implement a tier system when they were at the level of ~10k real cases like we did.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
Whether that SCOTUS decision was right or wrong, it was made in the context of the 2000 Florida electors, and thereby the whole Electoral College, still not being settled just a few days before the EC was due to vote. Trump's obviously hoping to muddy the waters and delay certification of as many swing states as he needs to a similar timescale so that SCOTUS will feel obliged to settle things so that the Electoral Vote can take place. But that's a lot easier to do if everything holds on exactly one state as in 2000.
Please, please pretty please let Fox be the one to declare Biden the winner.
Karma’s a bitch...but it would be absolutely pant-wettingly funny.
Its good business for them, they are about lose viewers to Trump TV anyway, may as well shore up the moderate Republicans who actually believe in democracy.
What's the extra electoral college vote that BBC is attributing to Trump that CNN aren't? Just out of curiosity.
I believe its a district of Maine.
For once since Tuesday I believe the BBC are correct. The R2 1900 news explaining that Biden is leading but Trump is ahead in PA, GA, NV, and NC.
Trump is behind in NV and AZ.
So they are wrong.
I didn't mention AZ, and NV was my error in my excitable rage. Sorry! My point was, technically they are correct, but it needs a big, big caveat, which they didn't add.
What's the extra electoral college vote that BBC is attributing to Trump that CNN aren't? Just out of curiosity.
Google/AP
Biden 264 Trump 214
Thats because they called AZ so early, even though its still very close 24 hours later, They may be right of course
They have Biden roughly 69,000 ahead with 88% counted.
True but the concensus is the votes to come in are much more for Trump so he will definately get much closer though may well fall short, its why no one else has called it, maybe Trump pssd Murdoch off and this is his revenge
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
Please, please pretty please let Fox be the one to declare Biden the winner.
Karma’s a bitch...but it would be absolutely pant-wettingly funny.
I'm suprised the other networks dont call NV just to try to push Fox into calling the election for Biden , yes
I'm not sure the Fox/Trump love-in is quite what it was. Jared was on the phone to Rupert on Tuesday night apparently to get him to pull the Arizona call. Obviously they wouldn't. There are a number of stories going around that say he wants to launch a rival network, or join the one he's been praising to the skies recently (whose name I forget), and they may not be that averse to calling against a potential rival.
365 just gone dems 3/10 GA. paddys still 4/7 if you think 365 are right.
I`ve been hammering BF -63.5 h`cap market. Biden was 1.8 - 2.0 until only half an hour ago. This was, in effect, a play on Biden winning Georgia.
Am I missing something on this market? Trump currently has 214 ECV's (217 once you include Alaska) - and that's not counting any of NV, AZ, GA, PA, NC. 217+63.5 = 280.5 which is greater than 270 - so Trump should be at 1.1 or tighter on this market surely?
I have a very confident end point of Biden 306, Trump 232. Difference 74. So Biden -63.5 pays out.
Thanks - thought that I was missing something obvious - mental block about handicap markets being the difference not vs the post. In which case the - 100.5 market might be worth looking at as a proxy for Biden sneaking NC as well (where I agree with Robert that I think he might) for and end point of 321-217
if it does end up at 306 i think only 2 states will have been won by the betting outsider before the counting started. NC and GA. and in NC trump was still only about Evs. GA I think Biden was about 11/8. If Biden does pinch NC then 49/50 favs will have won by my reckoning.
Everyone is saying how close it’s been and how the polls were out again. But with the exception of Florida and possibly Ohio, Biden has won every state he was expected to win, and been competitive in the states he was expected to do well in but fall short.
The National polls are on average about 3.5% out so at the extreme edge of the MoE. It may not technically be a fail but it ain't great either.
That's not right because you'd expect the error on a poll average to be much lower than on an individual poll.
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.
Just for clarity: the only issue is with the 4000 per day one? All the other data, including all the models that had deaths per day still higher than the first peak and the NHS overloaded are fine, but we should overlook them to focus only on the 4000 per day one as if this would mean that actually everything would be okay? Just asking for clarity, because it feels like deliberately focusing on something which, if it was removed, still wouldn’t change the situation.
The people in hospital are all faking it and the doctors are lying about the hospitals being full of..... fakers - didn't you get the memo?
This is fundamentally missing the point. Nobody sensible is denying either that COVID is a serious illness nor that there are drastic actions needed to be taken to combat it. Maybe even to the extent of the action being taken. However when the drastic actions have such far reaching consequences it is massively irresponsible for the scientists to use misleading and out-of-date data to justify it. If the offending study was excluded from the evidence and the same decision was seen to be justifiable then fine. But bear in mind that much of what we know about how the govt's mind was changed was based on arguments that we were exceeding "reasonable worse case scenarios". If performance against worst case scenarios is how policy is being decided, do you not think it is important that scientists should not be able to present "worst case scenarios" to bolster a case that are, in effect, made up?
Absolutely.
It simply erodes trust in the scientists. If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, there is no need to use misleading & out of date data.
And again, all the models and data should be publicly available. The data do not belong to any private individual or institution. It is public data, paid for by public money. The same is true of the models, they have been constructed by scientists using public money.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Yep, I made a similar point yesterday.
They're not puppets.
No they are not puppets, it is not worth it to be too blatant about things, but all the judges being highly political beings is very very relevant when 50/50 judgement calls come up, though thankfully those are rarer than we think.
Please, please pretty please let Fox be the one to declare Biden the winner.
Karma’s a bitch...but it would be absolutely pant-wettingly funny.
I'm suprised the other networks dont call NV just to try to push Fox into calling the election for Biden , yes
I'm not sure the Fox/Trump love-in is quite what it was. Jared was on the phone to Rupert on Tuesday night apparently to get him to pull the Arizona call. Obviously they wouldn't. There are a number of stories going around that say he wants to launch a rival network, or join the one he's been praising to the skies recently (whose name I forget), and they may not be that averse to calling against a potential rival.
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
If he gets to the last 2, and Le Pen is the other, it would still take a pretty big change in French society for her to then win out though, so he's surely safe?
Please, please pretty please let Fox be the one to declare Biden the winner.
Karma’s a bitch...but it would be absolutely pant-wettingly funny.
I'm suprised the other networks dont call NV just to try to push Fox into calling the election for Biden , yes
I'm not sure the Fox/Trump love-in is quite what it was. Jared was on the phone to Rupert on Tuesday night apparently to get him to pull the Arizona call. Obviously they wouldn't. There are a number of stories going around that say he wants to launch a rival network, or join the one he's been praising to the skies recently (whose name I forget), and they may not be that averse to calling against a potential rival.
Plus Rupert Murdoch's net worth is $17.4 billion, Trump's net worth is only $2.4 billion, to Murdoch therefore Trump is a relative peasant even if he managed to briefly be POTUS
I have no idea whatsoever why he is lauded on here as some kind of seer.
(As polite a chap as he is)
It's Thursday night. We still don't have a winner. Mr Ed was nearer the mark than all those here who were only arguing over how big Biden's margin would - bigly or yuge...
So I cut him some slack.
(I of course called the Biden win at one minute past midnight, Wednesday morning. But I expressed no opinion as to how tight it would be.)
No.
He predicted a Trump victory, as did I.
We were wrong.
The ones predicting a Biden victory were right on the big call, even if several posters under- or overstated the margin.
Just saw the amusing video of Nigel on the previous thread. This isn't just a winding-up-the-liberals thing - the man is genuinely, dreamily and uncompromisingly in love with Donald Trump. It's almost homoerotic.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
Please, please pretty please let Fox be the one to declare Biden the winner.
Karma’s a bitch...but it would be absolutely pant-wettingly funny.
I'm suprised the other networks dont call NV just to try to push Fox into calling the election for Biden , yes
I'm not sure the Fox/Trump love-in is quite what it was. Jared was on the phone to Rupert on Tuesday night apparently to get him to pull the Arizona call. Obviously they wouldn't. There are a number of stories going around that say he wants to launch a rival network, or join the one he's been praising to the skies recently (whose name I forget), and they may not be that averse to calling against a potential rival.
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
If he gets to the last 2, and Le Pen is the other, it would still take a pretty big change in French society for her to then win out though, so he's surely safe?
Yes, in 2017 most Les Republicains voters voted for Fillon in round 1 but Macron in round 2, it would take mass terrorism on a weekly basis most likely for them to consider voting for Le Pen
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.
Just for clarity: the only issue is with the 4000 per day one? All the other data, including all the models that had deaths per day still higher than the first peak and the NHS overloaded are fine, but we should overlook them to focus only on the 4000 per day one as if this would mean that actually everything would be okay? Just asking for clarity, because it feels like deliberately focusing on something which, if it was removed, still wouldn’t change the situation.
The people in hospital are all faking it and the doctors are lying about the hospitals being full of..... fakers - didn't you get the memo?
This is fundamentally missing the point. Nobody sensible is denying either that COVID is a serious illness nor that there are drastic actions needed to be taken to combat it. Maybe even to the extent of the action being taken. However when the drastic actions have such far reaching consequences it is massively irresponsible for the scientists to use misleading and out-of-date data to justify it. If the offending study was excluded from the evidence and the same decision was seen to be justifiable then fine. But bear in mind that much of what we know about how the govt's mind was changed was based on arguments that we were exceeding "reasonable worse case scenarios". If performance against worst case scenarios is how policy is being decided, do you not think it is important that scientists should not be able to present "worst case scenarios" to bolster a case that are, in effect, made up?
Absolutely.
It simply erodes trust in the scientists. If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, there is no need to use misleading & out of date data.
And again, all the models and data should be publicly available. The data do not belong to any private individual or institution. It is public data, paid for by public money. The same is true of the models, they have been constructed by scientists using public money.
This is just Science 101.
There, I agree. The indisputable facts were easily strong enough on their own.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
They haven't "flown in" - ie arrived - after election day.
They are just being counted after election day.
Note: PA is keeping any ballots received after election day separate - and there are only a very small number - and none have been counted so far.
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.
Just for clarity: the only issue is with the 4000 per day one? All the other data, including all the models that had deaths per day still higher than the first peak and the NHS overloaded are fine, but we should overlook them to focus only on the 4000 per day one as if this would mean that actually everything would be okay? Just asking for clarity, because it feels like deliberately focusing on something which, if it was removed, still wouldn’t change the situation.
The people in hospital are all faking it and the doctors are lying about the hospitals being full of..... fakers - didn't you get the memo?
This is fundamentally missing the point. Nobody sensible is denying either that COVID is a serious illness nor that there are drastic actions needed to be taken to combat it. Maybe even to the extent of the action being taken. However when the drastic actions have such far reaching consequences it is massively irresponsible for the scientists to use misleading and out-of-date data to justify it. If the offending study was excluded from the evidence and the same decision was seen to be justifiable then fine. But bear in mind that much of what we know about how the govt's mind was changed was based on arguments that we were exceeding "reasonable worse case scenarios". If performance against worst case scenarios is how policy is being decided, do you not think it is important that scientists should not be able to present "worst case scenarios" to bolster a case that are, in effect, made up?
Absolutely.
It simply erodes trust in the scientists. If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, there is no need to use misleading & out of date data.
And again, all the models and data should be publicly available. The data do not belong to any private individual or institution. It is public data, paid for by public money. The same is true of the models, they have been constructed by scientists using public money.
This is just Science 101.
There, I agree. The indisputable facts were easily strong enough on their own.
Isn't the Ferguson model downloadable from github, or is this something else?
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
If he gets to the last 2, and Le Pen is the other, it would still take a pretty big change in French society for her to then win out though, so he's surely safe?
I know I'm not predicting it however.... The left can only hold their noses and vote for Macron so many times, especially when he is rubbing his economic reforms into them. And if you're the 34% who supported Le Penn last time why not again? The worst that happens is you get a nationalistically charged Macron.
And, dare I be the first to say it SHY LE PENN VOTERS!
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
Doesn't seem sustainable - even if it is a dumb rule, for sake of argument, you cannot change the rules part way through.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
No - I'm asking whether you are really claiming that the results of elections have been flipped by ballots that have flowed in _after_ election day.
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
If he gets to the last 2, and Le Pen is the other, it would still take a pretty big change in French society for her to then win out though, so he's surely safe?
I know I'm not predicting it however.... The left can only hold their noses and vote for Macron so many times, especially when he is rubbing his economic reforms into them. And if you're the 34% who supported Le Penn last time why not again? The worst that happens is you get a nationalistically charged Macron.
And, dare I be the first to say it SHY LE PENN VOTERS!
I think there is a small risk that Le Pen is outflanked. She's dumped leaving the Euro, she's trying to get moderate Muslims (with French values) inside her tent. Her policy position now looks less like Farage and more like Sunak.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
Doesn't seem sustainable - even if it is a dumb rule, for sake of argument, you cannot change the rules part way through.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
Doesn't seem sustainable - even if it is a dumb rule, for sake of argument, you cannot change the rules part way through.
The Supreme Court can - it shouldnt, but it can.
You're right. What I meant was, I cannot think of how they could justify changing the rules part way through, even if the rule was bad. But judges can get very creative when they want.
I have no idea whatsoever why he is lauded on here as some kind of seer.
(As polite a chap as he is)
It's Thursday night. We still don't have a winner. Mr Ed was nearer the mark than all those here who were only arguing over how big Biden's margin would - bigly or yuge...
So I cut him some slack.
(I of course called the Biden win at one minute past midnight, Wednesday morning. But I expressed no opinion as to how tight it would be.)
He's been pushing conspiracy theories, misunderstanding the entire mathematical field of statistical sampling and until recently resolutely trying to mislead people about the course of the Pennsylvania count in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
The 2000 SCOTUS decision was lamentable, but also could be justified. Gore as I recall also fell on his sword to divert a constructional crisis.
Illigitimately overturning votes in MI and PA, subsequently sanctioned by SCOTUS would create a constitutional crisis. Add to that the disenfranchisement of half the electorate on a lie and I would expect to see civil unrest of Louis XIV proportions.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
No - I'm asking whether you are really claiming that the results of elections have been flipped by ballots that have flowed in _after_ election day.
Ok apologies, good point, that was incorrect. The Kavanaugh quote still shows his mindset and partisanship that are relevant to a future judgment on the voting process regardless.
*Everyone* in the centre and centre-left who wants to win elections in Western elections where they face a strong populist challenge needs to be taking notes:
Have we learnt nothing from the last election? You can now never discount the populist. Maybe Macron will see a declining turn out from the left and FN supporters stick with Marie?
If he gets to the last 2, and Le Pen is the other, it would still take a pretty big change in French society for her to then win out though, so he's surely safe?
I know I'm not predicting it however.... The left can only hold their noses and vote for Macron so many times, especially when he is rubbing his economic reforms into them. And if you're the 34% who supported Le Penn last time why not again? The worst that happens is you get a nationalistically charged Macron.
And, dare I be the first to say it SHY LE PENN VOTERS!
I think there is a small risk that Le Pen is outflanked. She's dumped leaving the Euro, she's trying to get moderate Muslims (with French values) inside her tent. Her policy position now looks less like Farage and more like Sunak.
They say 370,000 to be counted but I suspect there are more still to be reported - ie there is a gap between counting and then being tabulated and making it to the website.
In GA literally zero has been reported in the last couple of hours. But we know they are counting. So delay seems to be in the tabulating and reporting.
365 just gone dems 3/10 GA. paddys still 4/7 if you think 365 are right.
I`ve been hammering BF -63.5 h`cap market. Biden was 1.8 - 2.0 until only half an hour ago. This was, in effect, a play on Biden winning Georgia.
Am I missing something on this market? Trump currently has 214 ECV's (217 once you include Alaska) - and that's not counting any of NV, AZ, GA, PA, NC. 217+63.5 = 280.5 which is greater than 270 - so Trump should be at 1.1 or tighter on this market surely?
I have a very confident end point of Biden 306, Trump 232. Difference 74. So Biden -63.5 pays out.
Thanks - thought that I was missing something obvious - mental block about handicap markets being the difference not vs the post. In which case the - 100.5 market might be worth looking at as a proxy for Biden sneaking NC as well (where I agree with Robert that I think he might) for and end point of 321-217
if it does end up at 306 i think only 2 states will have been won by the betting outsider before the counting started. NC and GA. and in NC trump was still only about Evs. GA I think Biden was about 11/8. If Biden does pinch NC then 49/50 favs will have won by my reckoning.
Everyone is saying how close it’s been and how the polls were out again. But with the exception of Florida and possibly Ohio, Biden has won every state he was expected to win, and been competitive in the states he was expected to do well in but fall short.
The National polls are on average about 3.5% out so at the extreme edge of the MoE. It may not technically be a fail but it ain't great either.
They'll probably say they've counted another 5,000 votes and found another 6,000 so there's 121,000 still to count... and they are knocking off until Monday now (Georgia Election Counting Rest Day).
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.
Just for clarity: the only issue is with the 4000 per day one? All the other data, including all the models that had deaths per day still higher than the first peak and the NHS overloaded are fine, but we should overlook them to focus only on the 4000 per day one as if this would mean that actually everything would be okay? Just asking for clarity, because it feels like deliberately focusing on something which, if it was removed, still wouldn’t change the situation.
The people in hospital are all faking it and the doctors are lying about the hospitals being full of..... fakers - didn't you get the memo?
This is fundamentally missing the point. Nobody sensible is denying either that COVID is a serious illness nor that there are drastic actions needed to be taken to combat it. Maybe even to the extent of the action being taken. However when the drastic actions have such far reaching consequences it is massively irresponsible for the scientists to use misleading and out-of-date data to justify it. If the offending study was excluded from the evidence and the same decision was seen to be justifiable then fine. But bear in mind that much of what we know about how the govt's mind was changed was based on arguments that we were exceeding "reasonable worse case scenarios". If performance against worst case scenarios is how policy is being decided, do you not think it is important that scientists should not be able to present "worst case scenarios" to bolster a case that are, in effect, made up?
Absolutely.
It simply erodes trust in the scientists. If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, there is no need to use misleading & out of date data.
And again, all the models and data should be publicly available. The data do not belong to any private individual or institution. It is public data, paid for by public money. The same is true of the models, they have been constructed by scientists using public money.
This is just Science 101.
There, I agree. The indisputable facts were easily strong enough on their own.
Isn't the Ferguson model downloadable from github, or is this something else?
The Ferguson model is.
But, the PHE/Cambridge model is not available (as far as I am aware).
Also, to use the model to make a prediction, you will need the input data.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
The 2000 SCOTUS decision was lamentable, but also could be justified. Gore as I recall also fell on his sword to divert a constructional crisis.
Illigitimately overturning votes in MI and PA, subsequently sanctioned by SCOTUS would create a constitutional crisis. Add to that the disenfranchisement of half the electorate on a lie and I would expect to see civil unrest of Louis XIV proportions.
Louis XIV reigned for 72 years: I'm not sure he was too worried by any civil unrest. Louis XVI on the other hand...
The way people get on about Trump as if he is an evil genius who can somehow turn everything around by nefarious means. Way too much credit. He is a man and a weak one at that.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
Kavanaugh is correct there.
Are there any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
The 2000 SCOTUS decision was lamentable, but also could be justified. Gore as I recall also fell on his sword to divert a constructional crisis.
Illigitimately overturning votes in MI and PA, subsequently sanctioned by SCOTUS would create a constitutional crisis. Add to that the disenfranchisement of half the electorate on a lie and I would expect to see civil unrest of Louis XIV proportions.
Be nice to know the uk numbers but apparently not possible to do this...
58,000 cases implies 3000-5000 new hospitalisations, and ~1000 in ICU? In one day
58k tested cases in France translates to around 200-230k cases in real terms with around 40% symptomatic. France is heading into the 1k deaths per day range in case terms. I do wonder why they didn't implement a tier system when they were at the level of ~10k real cases like we did.
Poland looks worrying on the data and also on anecdotes I've heard:
Comments
So I cut him some slack.
(I of course called the Biden win at one minute past midnight, Wednesday morning. But I expressed no opinion as to how tight it would be.)
Just trolling.....
I thought free movement was mandatory - no cherry picking?
Perhaps though not the basis you wanted.
I think we test a bit more than France, so they're perhaps in 2-4x a worse place than us.
We'll have a spike after tonight anyway. Huddled up and daft Guy-Fawkers.
It simply erodes trust in the scientists. If the evidence is there and it is overwhelming, there is no need to use misleading & out of date data.
And again, all the models and data should be publicly available. The data do not belong to any private individual or institution. It is public data, paid for by public money. The same is true of the models, they have been constructed by scientists using public money.
This is just Science 101.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network
The judge keeps disappearing. Is that because the software has trouble distinguishing her skin colour from the background? #UnintendedRacism
He predicted a Trump victory, as did I.
We were wrong.
The ones predicting a Biden victory were right on the big call, even if several posters under- or overstated the margin.
It really is that simple.
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
The indisputable facts were easily strong enough on their own.
Flowed in after election day?
They are just being counted after election day.
Note: PA is keeping any ballots received after election day separate - and there are only a very small number - and none have been counted so far.
And, dare I be the first to say it SHY LE PENN VOTERS!
Lead now 108,697
Sunil's much better than that.
During a hospital inspection somewhere in Russia:
Inspector: Cause of death of this patient?
Doctor: Reaction to vaccine.
Inspector: And this one?
Doctor: Another bad reaction, I'm afraid.
Inspector: This one?
Doctor: The same.
Inspector: Urgh. How about this one? You can't tell me he died the same way.
Doctor: Not at all. This patient died of blunt force trauma to the back of the head.
Inspector: Well, thank God for that! How did that happen?
Doctor: He refused to take the vaccine...
And he called the election wrong.
I would also question his levels of politeness.
Illigitimately overturning votes in MI and PA, subsequently sanctioned by SCOTUS would create a constitutional crisis. Add to that the disenfranchisement of half the electorate on a lie and I would expect to see civil unrest of Louis XIV proportions.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1324439705522524162
(only kidding!)
They say 370,000 to be counted but I suspect there are more still to be reported - ie there is a gap between counting and then being tabulated and making it to the website.
In GA literally zero has been reported in the last couple of hours. But we know they are counting. So delay seems to be in the tabulating and reporting.
They'll probably say they've counted another 5,000 votes and found another 6,000 so there's 121,000 still to count... and they are knocking off until Monday now (Georgia Election Counting Rest Day).
But, the PHE/Cambridge model is not available (as far as I am aware).
Also, to use the model to make a prediction, you will need the input data.
Louis XVI on the other hand...
The way people get on about Trump as if he is an evil genius who can somehow turn everything around by nefarious means. Way too much credit. He is a man and a weak one at that.
America has a lot to learn from us about conducting elections.
Are there any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Biden 1,509
Trump 1,404
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1324385045738565640
Switzerland is also in a bad place and who would have expected that.