The betting moves further and further away from Trump – politicalbetting.com
The chart above from Betfair’s main rival, Smarkets. neatly maps what’s been happening although as of the time of writing there’s been no new state going Biden’s way.
I get the impression Trump thinks things are not real until it happens on TV. How is a media channel 'calling' a state putting their finger on the scales when the vote has already happened and the count taking place?
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
Trump winning AZ wont make a difference now but, Fox were still stupid declaring so early based on just a few batches from one county, however good they looked for Biden at that time.
As HYUFD teaches us, it doesn't matter how you arrive at the right answer so long as you do, so if it's called right it's called right.
I'm still struggling to see why it matters. Even if Trump and co are furious at Fox for calling the race there, even they cannot think it impacted anything?
I see from Eric Trump's feed that they are crowdfunding an election defence fund - they're not so stupid to spend their own money on this thing, even if they think they'll succeed.
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 ?
Kavanaugh is either utterly ignorant, of utterly contemptuous of electoral law, which is quite clear.
So can you name any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Sure.
But if the State's law is that ballots received in the week after the election (but postmarked before) are valid, then that's the State's law.
Ironic, really, that historical voting by mail was largely older Republicans, and these late arriving valid rules are mostly in traditionally Republican States like North Carolina.
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 ?
Kavanaugh is either utterly ignorant, of utterly contemptuous of electoral law, which is quite clear.
So can you name any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
What does the silliness of a law which allows votes to be counted if posted before or on election day have to do with whether it is lawful for votes to be counted if posted before or on election day?
There are many laws which I think are silly, or even bad, but which are still valid laws. And they all knew what the law was going into it and in the USA challenging laws as improper well ahead of time seems pretty easy.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
I am amazed that there were people, given all the postal trouble, leaving it so late to send out their postal votes. Though I suppose in some cases people may only have received theirs with not much time left.
I am amazed that there were people, given all the postal trouble, leaving it so late to send out their postal votes. Though I suppose in some cases people may only have received theirs with not much time left.
I thought the problem was that the USPS was taking 2-3 weeks to deliver ballots? It's not like here where it takes a day or two.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
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
FPT: You're still neglecting the point that there is a lot of tactical voting already thanks to the Greens and Trots (which admittedly could go either way for Labour) - compare Holyrood and Westminster votes (as indeed you imply).
And, erm, not to be unkind, but as an easily identifiable Conservative Party official, should you really be publicly promoting voting for Labour, at a time when having the Labour Party candidates appeal to Tory and LD voters is completely what you do not want UK-wide?
Greens and Trots may vote Labour at Westminster level, for Holyrood constituency seats they will always vote SNP.
In England and Wales I would of course only advocate voting Tory as Labour or the LDs are the Tories main opponents, in Scotland however the SNP are the Tories main opponents and saving the Union the Tories main cause so outside of rural Scotland and a few posh urban seats where I would advocate voting Tory at the constituency level for most Holyrood constutuencies it makes sense as a Unionist to back voting SLab in central belt seats to beat the SNP and Tory on the list
Nevertheless, you are betraying your own party, as you keep telling me that the SCons are one and the same as your mob in Essex.
No, beating the SNP who most Tories despise is the primary goal of all Tories in relation to Scotland which has a distinct politics different from England and Wales
This conservative does not despise the SNP and you just do not get it that your bombastic comments about the Scots just hastens independence which is the main disagreement I have with the SNP
It was refreshing to hear Drakeford make an unequivocally case for the union this week in his Cardiff press conference and I give him full marks for it
I doubt my dislike for the SNP on a blogging site makes the slightest difference to the Scottish situation, however much as I oppose Starmer Labour and the LDs I do not hate them in the way I despise the SNP for wanting to break my sovereign country up, apart from Sinn Fein the SNP are probably the party I would do my utmost to defeat in UK politics.
Good to see Drakeford at last showing some Unionist sentiment
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
Again, isn't that because of their slow postal service?
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Thank you on 1, that is interesting, and just raises further questions on how it could be argued to be unlawful. On 2, I think everyone gets that about the multiple votes on the ballot, but that the issue is not insurmountable, or at least could be mitigated more than it seems to be quite easily, particularly when they get a lot of it done pretty sharpish.
I am amazed that there were people, given all the postal trouble, leaving it so late to send out their postal votes. Though I suppose in some cases people may only have received theirs with not much time left.
I thought the problem was that the USPS was taking 2-3 weeks to deliver ballots? It's not like here where it takes a day or two.
An American friend could track when their vote was received and it was about 3.5 weeks - thats from Europe though.
Right. Now that the election is over I can go back to my second most favourite topic to mock contrarian about which is Coronavirus.
In Georgia cases are back of upwards for their 3rd peak. Deaths from the second peak already bottoming off and about to head up. A much smaller lag between cases and deaths than for the 2nd peak.
There is months before a competent adult gets to helm the Federal response to this. It will be carnage in America over winter.
Robert, Arizona really is over. The remaining to be counted are solidly Dem. The networks were right to call it. Even Nate Silver has come on board now.
Biden wins Pennsylvania and Arizona. Nevada too probably.
Georgia is a genuine toss up but I maintain my view that Biden will win it c. 5,000-7,5000
North Carolina Trump (probably)
In a few hours the networks will call Biden for the Presidency.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
Again, isn't that because of their slow postal service?
Associated with the application deadlines, which in some states are only a few days before the election, and in some you can turn up the day before and get one. Perhaps reflects how many Americans travel for work?
Would it be cynical of me to think that once Biden gets a state that takes him over 269 the remaining states (AK excepted) will count their votes and be called for Biden in pretty short order?
The remaining votes from California should push Trump above Obama's peak of 69,498,516 and mean both candidates beat the previous highest ever popular vote in a US election.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
SNP OVERALL MAJORITY: 11 SEATS; PRO-INDY MAJORITY: 31 SEATS.
Nothing a little SLab/SCon/SLD tactical voting can't sort, I'm sure.
Quite easily, there are at least 15 to 20 SNP constituencies where the SNP is under 50% of the vote and SLab is the main challenger who would win with Tory and LD tactical voting, there are also some seats in the Highlands held by the SNP the LDs would win with Tory tactical voting.
Plus that poll is now a bit out of date, with Biden's election there is near zero chance of Boris doing No Deal and an EU FTA will be harder for Sturgeon to argue against and Sunak today is boosting furlough for Scotland as well as England, which will help the Tories hold their Scottish seats as well. I remain of the view Sturgeon could face May's fate with a big poll lead collapsing to a lost majority on polling day, if that occurs Salmond will be ready to take his revenge on Mrs Murrell
You're right that the more the deal looks like EEA membership, the harder it is for Sturgeon to argue against. On the other hand, though, it reduces the concern about a hard border between Scotland and rUK if Scotland were to rejoin the EU.
I don't know how this balances out with voters.
Exactly. The Brexiter-Tory Unionist screwup. After promising in 2014 that the only way to stay iun the EU was to remain in the UK. At which it was pointed out that Scotland would be joining the EU anyway, the only barrier being deliberate rUK obstruction. Now rUK is leaving, who's going to stop Scotland rejoining the EU and getting the same terms EDIT: for trade with rUK as the EU?
And as for the furlough, the Torties have lost all credibility as unionists by refusing it to everyone from Welsh to Yorkshiremen (NB: not devolved nation [edit]) for so long, till their precious SE was deemed to need it. It will not be forgotten.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
Or the deaths are reflecting the spread of the virus prior to the Tier system being introduced, and the Tier system was far more effective than was being claimed. Hospitalisations in England fell today. A promising sign. Deaths (rise or fall) lag hospitalisations. Hospitalisations (rise or fall) lag cases. Cases (rise or fall) lag introduction or loosening of restrictions.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
I'm the last person to defend this government but... wouldn't the introduction of Lockdown 2 alter the projections?
You think that is why the figures have been changed.
Yeh, right.
Surely you only have to look at the graph to see that it assumes no lockdown. All numbers to date ignore effects of lockdown. But the trend line is completely consistent with the current data when it should be levelling off if the lockdown is to have an effect.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Eisenhower was originally sounded out to be Dem candidate with Truman as veep.
I see Trump's son has had a pop at the GOP for not showing enough backing for his da.
Like I said last night there are some serious tensions there and splits between the party officials and the Trump coterie.
Could be trouble ahead for GOP. There's no doubt that Trump brought a lot of non traditional GOP voters to the party. How many? Can't say. But not at all ridiculous that he can take them away again.
SNP OVERALL MAJORITY: 11 SEATS; PRO-INDY MAJORITY: 31 SEATS.
Nothing a little SLab/SCon/SLD tactical voting can't sort, I'm sure.
Quite easily, there are at least 15 to 20 SNP constituencies where the SNP is under 50% of the vote and SLab is the main challenger who would win with Tory and LD tactical voting, there are also some seats in the Highlands held by the SNP the LDs would win with Tory tactical voting.
Plus that poll is now a bit out of date, with Biden's election there is near zero chance of Boris doing No Deal and an EU FTA will be harder for Sturgeon to argue against and Sunak today is boosting furlough for Scotland as well as England, which will help the Tories hold their Scottish seats as well. I remain of the view Sturgeon could face May's fate with a big poll lead collapsing to a lost majority on polling day, if that occurs Salmond will be ready to take his revenge on Mrs Murrell
You're right that the more the deal looks like EEA membership, the harder it is for Sturgeon to argue against. On the other hand, though, it reduces the concern about a hard border between Scotland and rUK if Scotland were to rejoin the EU.
I don't know how this balances out with voters.
Exactly. The Brexiter-Tory Unionist screwup. After promising in 2014 that the only way to stay iun the EU was to remain in the UK. At which it was pointed out that Scotland would be joining the EU anyway, the only barrier being deliberate rUK obstruction. Now rUK is leaving, who's going to stop Scotland rejoining the EU and getting the same terms EDIT: for trade with rUK as the EU?
And as for the furlough, the Torties have lost all credibility as unionists by refusing it to everyone from Welsh to Yorkshiremen (NB: not devolved nation [edit]) for so long, till their precious SE was deemed to need it. It will not be forgotten.
Under a FTA with the EU there would still be a hard border between an independent Scotland in the EU and the rUK, just less of one than there would be with No Deal
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
I see Trump's son has had a pop at the GOP for not showing enough backing for his da.
Like I said last night there are some serious tensions there and splits between the party officials and the Trump coterie.
Could be trouble ahead for GOP. There's no doubt that Trump brought a lot of non traditional GOP voters to the party. How many? Can't say. But not at all ridiculous that he can take them away again.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
Or the deaths are reflecting the spread of the virus prior to the Tier system being introduced, and the Tier system was far more effective than was being claimed. Hospitalisations in England fell today. A promising sign. Deaths (rise or fall) lag hospitalisations. Hospitalisations (rise or fall) lag cases. Cases (rise or fall) lag introduction or loosening of restrictions.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
Comments
I'm still struggling to see why it matters. Even if Trump and co are furious at Fox for calling the race there, even they cannot think it impacted anything?
I see from Eric Trump's feed that they are crowdfunding an election defence fund - they're not so stupid to spend their own money on this thing, even if they think they'll succeed.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1324468453105934336
But if the State's law is that ballots received in the week after the election (but postmarked before) are valid, then that's the State's law.
Ironic, really, that historical voting by mail was largely older Republicans, and these late arriving valid rules are mostly in traditionally Republican States like North Carolina.
Has TSE been moonlighting as a headline writer for the Metro?
There are many laws which I think are silly, or even bad, but which are still valid laws. And they all knew what the law was going into it and in the USA challenging laws as improper well ahead of time seems pretty easy.
@rcs1000 re what you said.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
Suspect it won't be a thread header because you know the betting event in America.
But don't take it personally, I've got pieces by Cyclefree, Alastair Meeks, and Casino Royale unpublished for days.
But read this thread, it'll inform you a lot.
https://twitter.com/Ike_Saul/status/1324435797374808066
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/upshot/arizona-election-call.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
Trumpworld very anxious right now about losing fair and square.
P/S We seem to be living in a bipolar age: Roughly 50/50 for Brexit, roughly 55/50 for president, roughly 50/50 for IQs in 2 or 3 figures.
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
...someone has posted that photo from Bozo's count over on the Rail Forums US Election thread.
Those numbers are in line with earlier.
They are just excruciatingly slow at counting.
Trump lead now 90k.
Thoughts @MrEd ?
Cases by specimen date
Cases by specimen date, scaled to 100K population
R derived from cases
GA just updated!
Lead 9,525
In Georgia cases are back of upwards for their 3rd peak. Deaths from the second peak already bottoming off and about to head up. A much smaller lag between cases and deaths than for the 2nd peak.
There is months before a competent adult gets to helm the Federal response to this. It will be carnage in America over winter.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1324421573537865734
"Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit who has been exiled from some Trump circles for her fringe views..."
by cases
by hospital admissions
270 to win.
Then it's all over.
That's it. Trump is done.
Biden wins Pennsylvania and Arizona. Nevada too probably.
Georgia is a genuine toss up but I maintain my view that Biden will win it c. 5,000-7,5000
North Carolina Trump (probably)
In a few hours the networks will call Biden for the Presidency.
Yeh, right.
Are you so dismal in real life?
Almost as if taking action has an effect.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
And as for the furlough, the Torties have lost all credibility as unionists by refusing it to everyone from Welsh to Yorkshiremen (NB: not devolved nation [edit]) for so long, till their precious SE was deemed to need it. It will not be forgotten.
1.03
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1324401735041953798
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Like I said last night there are some serious tensions there and splits between the party officials and the Trump coterie.
I wouldn't be surprised frankly if they find enough votes to put Perdue over the line at just over 50% and so avoid a second runoff.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.