He was up against an easily ridiculed, populist leader of a divided party, with an electorate tired of chaotic politics and crying out for competent governance.
As Owen says, Biden really ought to have cruised to an easy victory just like Jezza did last December.
Biden is going to win the PV by nearly 5% and probably the Electoral College by 74 votes. Sounds pretty comfortable to me.
No, she's really, really focused on Georgia. The Dem establishment and activists were begging her to run for Senate. She said "No, I'm going to focus on building Dem infrastructure in Georgia".
She was right. She's going to finish the job in Georgia before doing anything else.
Yes; I worked for a global tech firm with lots of very clever American ex-forces types who'd graduated on Uncle Sam's dollar. I understand we in Britain are better at this than we used to be but I still remember being shocked 20-odd years ago when overhearing homeless (and sometimes disabled) guys discussing problems with their military pensions.
They are better at managing people with problems at discharge but the pensions are substantially worse. Anybody who joined up after 2005 got fucked and anybody who joined after 2015 got fucked in every hole.
Sorry to hear about what you went through @Dura_Ace but glad you came out the other side
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
It's now very easy to see why Trump wanted to face Sanders. Trump would have romped home.
He'd also have beaten Hillary a 2nd time, as voters would have been cross they hadn't got the message the first time. Probably by an even bigger margin too without the Rona.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokeness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Any constitutional experts know which of the states that Dems are likely to win, could have their electoral college delegations commandeered by republican state politicians?
Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from this election is not Goodwin's solution of just accepting the populist narrative and running with it but instead articulating your own vision underpinned by competence and strategy.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
As fake news slips away, we see the emergence of fake modesty.
Not fake modesty, legendary modesty, there's a difference, only people with modesty understand the distinction, especially those of us who offer fantastic betting advice.
I mean I've been banging on about my legendary modesty for years.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
Frustratingly the Alska state electoral site offers a laovely XML file showing how the vote is broken down by on day, absentee, early vote for 2020 but don't offer it for 2016. So I have no idea for the "feel" of mail in voting in Alaska.
Fox is transfixed by stories of 'irregularities' from PA, while GA may steal the story....
Fox is absolutely sh1t scared Trump is going to start his own TV channel and wreck their audience. The US TV market is not great anyway and seeing half of your audience disappear off would be catastrophic. Plus Lachlan is not as good as Rupert
Well, having near half of America sure they were robbed of their rightful President is going to give him one hell of a potential audience. If he proves to be a better TV magnate than President, it probably gives the Republican party more nightmares than the Democrats. They ain't ever healing.
The humiliation will be huge as will watching his acolytes desert him. Nothing worse for someone with his ego being yesterday's man. You could see him diminish in front of your eyes even last night
In front of your eyes. But those of his supporters, who feel cheated? Not so sure....
It's interesting, I had thought in the case of a loss the GOP would smoothly dump Trump and move on. But today I am not so sure.
If Trump had not gained votes on 2016 - say he lost some moderates who'd reluctantly voted for him due to Clinton, but gained some more voters who believed he'd kept his promises - then it would have been easier to dump him.
As it is he has had a surge in support. It's a bit like Corbyn 2017.
But politics is a bit different in the US. In the UK there is an officieal leader of the opposition, and Corbyn remained the LOTO. In the US there is not really a LOTO. There can be a leader of the House or of the Senate, but the outgoing president is not in the house or the senate. In essence there is no direct equivalent of LOTO in the US. The GOP will be open for new challengers to step up in the next 3 years, and Trump will not be in a good place to keep those challengers down.
Finally the other big difference is that Corbyn was never PM, so a better analogy is Heath in 74. Heath managed to stay in place and fight third election in 74, but it was never realistic that he would be allowed to fight a fourth election in 78 or 79.
If Trump both sets up a TV channel and fancies a go as an independent candidate, then the GOP is in real trouble for a few cycles isn’t it?
I don't think either of those are likely.
Running a successful TV channel isn't something that relies simply on being a big celeb. It needs to be a professional outfit with a broad output that appeals to people long term, and attracts advertisers. It also takes serious investment.
As for being an independent candidate, Trump wants to win. Being a spoiler who allows Biden cruise to a second term (or Harris to a first) against a divided opposition just isn't going to appeal - that's a game for Losers.
Sorry old bean, but that is pure speculation on your part. May I suggest that you speak less in absolutes and more in suggestions? Eg. "It is possible that..." or "IMHO the government has lost support because..."
My belief/speculation is that as with many things, the public, who are less interested in politics than those on here, have eventually caught up with the fact that Boris Johnson is not a leader, that he is an incompetent buffoon, and they have stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is also my opinion that they are now giving a serious look at Labour who they are giving the benefit of the doubt to as they have a smart professional looking leader. Simples! Tories should ditch The Clown asap.
The figures are clear 7% of 2019 Tory voters have now switched to Farage and the Brexit party, now to become the anti lockdown Reform UK party ie almost as many as the 8% who have switched to Labour. 44% of 2019 LDs are voting Labour so more of the increased Labour vote is coming from 2019 LDs than Tories and the swing away from the Tories this week is mainly to Farage after the lockdown, so getting out of the lockdown in December as planned is vital, it is a policy issue not a Boris issue per se https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/w35fkmlez4/TheTimes_VI_Tracker_201105_W1.pdf
Imagine explaining Test Cricket to an American - play for five days and still end in a draw.
A Test match is more like a series in Baseball. It is very very common that say the LA Dogers travel to San Francisco (Giants) for a four day series and the series is tied 2-2.
You cannot claim that each match is independent because the starting pitchers will be different each day. Furthermore, if today the Dogers "beat up" on a Giants starting pitcher who gets substituted early in the game, then the relief pitchers will have to pitch for much longer. This will make them less effective at pitching in the game tomorrow.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
I see @kinabalu is behaving with his usual grace. He's probably getting himself wired up before he goes out hunting for TERFs and burning JK Rowling's books.
Well, the insults are unnecessary, if you post partisan stuff expect it to be commented on negatively (as well as positively by others).
That's fair enough. And looking at @kinabalu's post again, I was wrong to react in the way I did. So @kinabalu, apologies.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Here's what Luntz actually said:
Luntz explained the discrepancy by telling Hemmer that Trump voters “do not like participating in surveys.”
“They think that the information is going to be used against them, they think it is all part of the swamp, they think that it is part of CNN or the New York Times,” Luntz said.
“The only time that they’ll participate is if they know that they are having an impact [and] hey know that the people of Washington are actually listening to them rather than ignoring them or forgetting them," he added. "So it is really hard to do accurate polling if you got a segment of the population that simply refuses to participate. But, good for them. They have the right to know that they are being heard and that’s one of the reasons why they’re voting for Donald Trump.”
I know what Luntz said. The article I posted has links to actual polling.
He's projecting the conclusion he wants from the survey data he cites - which has nothing to do with polling or polling error - onto Luntz's comments which have nothing in them to support it. And you're projecting the conclusion you want onto the article.
I'm not hugely keen on all the woke stuff myself, and it's one of the reasons I am less positive toward my own party than I used to be. But I at least have the excuse of being almost retired. For you it seems to be an obsession that you are determined to lever in as the conclusion of almost any piece of data. Take care, for that path will see you moving to Epping...
Meanwhile Fox is advertising that pan which you can drive your truck over, again. We're missing out, this side of the pond.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
Given what’s likely to happen in the early part of next year, I’d be amazed if Labour wasn’t clocking up 20 point leads and the Tories flirting with third place at some point midterm. Doesn’t mean they won’t win the next election though. You have to look at midterm polls very differently. The best PM numbers are more interesting, but it’s early days.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
If you don't like your company's values may I ask why you chose to work for them?
Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from this election is not Goodwin's solution of just accepting the populist narrative and running with it but instead articulating your own vision underpinned by competence and strategy.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
While Goodwin might have ideas about how to specifically respond to the populist narrative, surely the main point would be that it exists and has to be acknowledged/taken into account at least, even if people respond differently to him? The selection of Biden chosen in part to appeal to people who may have voted Trump as part of that populist surge (even if he is hardly a Trumpesque figure) rather than someone who is simply hostile to people drawn in by such a narrative, would seem in keeping with that.
Seems like a good idea to investigate if its plausible at least.
Or would you laugh at the idea of Britain being connected to eg France by tunnel?
The channel doesn’t have a few million tonnes of old artillery shells six feet above it. From an engineering perspective you could probably do it, but it would be more expensive and difficult than the Chunnel because you’d need more ventilation and the ability to respond to a fire incredibly quickly. Not sure this is the right thing to be spending money on when more prosaic things like upgrading and renovating the National Grid are far more pressing.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Here's what Luntz actually said:
Luntz explained the discrepancy by telling Hemmer that Trump voters “do not like participating in surveys.”
“They think that the information is going to be used against them, they think it is all part of the swamp, they think that it is part of CNN or the New York Times,” Luntz said.
“The only time that they’ll participate is if they know that they are having an impact [and] hey know that the people of Washington are actually listening to them rather than ignoring them or forgetting them," he added. "So it is really hard to do accurate polling if you got a segment of the population that simply refuses to participate. But, good for them. They have the right to know that they are being heard and that’s one of the reasons why they’re voting for Donald Trump.”
I know what Luntz said. The article I posted has links to actual polling.
He's projecting the conclusion he wants from the survey data he cites - which has nothing to do with polling or polling error - onto Luntz's comments which have nothing in them to support it. And you're projecting the conclusion you want onto the article.
I'm not hugely keen on all the woke stuff myself, and it's one of the reasons I am less positive toward my own party than I used to be. But I at least have the excuse of being almost retired. For you it seems to be an obsession that you are determined to lever in as the conclusion of almost any piece of data. Take care, for that path will see you moving to Epping...
Meanwhile Fox is advertising that pan which you can drive your truck over, again. We're missing out, this side of the pond.
I don't think he's projecting. The data is linked and verifiable and speaks for itself. At the very least, if you're sceptical, it's worth further research, investigation and analysis.
I am pleased to read your second paragraph though, which is progress. If you want to know why I get so riled about it it's because I get it every day at work, so it agitates me (as I can't really contest it without great risk to myself).
Fox is transfixed by stories of 'irregularities' from PA, while GA may steal the story....
Fox is absolutely sh1t scared Trump is going to start his own TV channel and wreck their audience. The US TV market is not great anyway and seeing half of your audience disappear off would be catastrophic. Plus Lachlan is not as good as Rupert
Well, having near half of America sure they were robbed of their rightful President is going to give him one hell of a potential audience. If he proves to be a better TV magnate than President, it probably gives the Republican party more nightmares than the Democrats. They ain't ever healing.
The humiliation will be huge as will watching his acolytes desert him. Nothing worse for someone with his ego being yesterday's man. You could see him diminish in front of your eyes even last night
In front of your eyes. But those of his supporters, who feel cheated? Not so sure....
It's interesting, I had thought in the case of a loss the GOP would smoothly dump Trump and move on. But today I am not so sure.
If Trump had not gained votes on 2016 - say he lost some moderates who'd reluctantly voted for him due to Clinton, but gained some more voters who believed he'd kept his promises - then it would have been easier to dump him.
As it is he has had a surge in support. It's a bit like Corbyn 2017.
But politics is a bit different in the US. In the UK there is an officieal leader of the opposition, and Corbyn remained the LOTO. In the US there is not really a LOTO. There can be a leader of the House or of the Senate, but the outgoing president is not in the house or the senate. In essence there is no direct equivalent of LOTO in the US. The GOP will be open for new challengers to step up in the next 3 years, and Trump will not be in a good place to keep those challengers down.
Finally the other big difference is that Corbyn was never PM, so a better analogy is Heath in 74. Heath managed to stay in place and fight third election in 74, but it was never realistic that he would be allowed to fight a fourth election in 78 or 79.
If Trump both sets up a TV channel and fancies a go as an independent candidate, then the GOP is in real trouble for a few cycles isn’t it?
I don't think either of those are likely.
Running a successful TV channel isn't something that relies simply on being a big celeb. It needs to be a professional outfit with a broad output that appeals to people long term, and attracts advertisers. It also takes serious investment.
As for being an independent candidate, Trump wants to win. Being a spoiler who allows Biden cruise to a second term (or Harris to a first) against a divided opposition just isn't going to appeal - that's a game for Losers.
The rules have changed with streaming so it is easier to reach a mass audience without the need for a broadcast licence or anything else. He would have trouble distributing it (YouTube, Facebook etc would almost certainly not give him a platform) but he could find a way.
I don't think the investment is an issue, it is more that advertisers would not want to be associated with it. So he would have to do it on a subscription basis. I think he would get a good chunk of subscribers but obviously it limits his audience.
Seems like a good idea to investigate if its plausible at least.
Or would you laugh at the idea of Britain being connected to eg France by tunnel?
The channel doesn’t have a few million tonnes of old artillery shells six feet above it. From an engineering perspective you could probably do it, but it would be more expensive and difficult than the Chunnel because you’d need more ventilation and the ability to respond to a fire incredibly quickly. Not sure this is the right thing to be spending money on when more prosaic things like upgrading and renovating the National Grid are far more pressing.
If we wait a bit, we might be able to get the Republic to pay half.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
And a majority of Scots now support Independence and the SNP are likely to win a majority in Scotland next year.
So why are your views on democracy so inconsistent, you're extremely partisan on the issue of what votes matter for which issue.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
That's good to hear then (him calling out the attempt to discredit the election). That's very good to hear.
On the rest, I agree. He does put the Trumpian view well. When I said he was an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy, that is exactly what I meant. I used the word "fanboy" because of my contempt for the view.
Re the betting angle, he called it wrong and clearly wrong, but to the extent he stopped people betting on a Biden landslide, that was a service rendered.
This is a fair and balanced assessment, I think.
Ditto me. I called it right - Trump Toast and not that close - but also wrong. Trump performed quite a bit better than I expected.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
If you don't like your company's values may I ask why you chose to work for them?
Every company has a mixture of pros and cons. You have to pick. They pay very well, I have no boss and lots of freedom, it's a family firm and very flexible, and I get lots of benefits.
Besides which I largely *agree* with their official values (which aren't political) it's just the interpretation and political conclusions they reach off the back of them I don't agree with.
Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from this election is not Goodwin's solution of just accepting the populist narrative and running with it but instead articulating your own vision underpinned by competence and strategy.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
While Goodwin might have ideas about how to specifically respond to the populist narrative, surely the main point would be that it exists and has to be acknowledged/taken into account at least, even if people respond differently to him? The selection of Biden chosen in part to appeal to people who may have voted Trump as part of that populist surge (even if he is hardly a Trumpesque figure) rather than someone who is simply hostile to people drawn in by such a narrative, would seem in keeping with that.
My point is that Biden did not accept the narrative, he refused to be drawn into it.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
If you don't like your company's values may I ask why you chose to work for them?
Every company has a mixture of pros and cons. You have to pick. They pay very well, I have no boss and lots of freedom, it's a family firm and very flexible, and I get lots of benefits.
Besides which I largely *agree* with their official values (which aren't political) it's just the interpretation and political conclusions they reach off the back of them I don't agree with.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I think it's wrong to assume the lesson to be learnt from this is that the Republicans need a more centrist candidate. We're forgetting they have made considerable House gains and that Biden's EC lead may look substantial but, like Trump's in 2016, it is resting on very thin margins. There is an argument to say that, if CV hadn't been around, Trump would have walked it. CV will probably not be around in 2024.
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from this election is not Goodwin's solution of just accepting the populist narrative and running with it but instead articulating your own vision underpinned by competence and strategy.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
While Goodwin might have ideas about how to specifically respond to the populist narrative, surely the main point would be that it exists and has to be acknowledged/taken into account at least, even if people respond differently to him? The selection of Biden chosen in part to appeal to people who may have voted Trump as part of that populist surge (even if he is hardly a Trumpesque figure) rather than someone who is simply hostile to people drawn in by such a narrative, would seem in keeping with that.
My point is that Biden did not accept the narrative, he refused to be drawn into it.
Yes, but he didn't ignore it in favour of fringe concerns was my point. He took the electorate as it was, not as he wanted it to be.
Seems like a good idea to investigate if its plausible at least.
Or would you laugh at the idea of Britain being connected to eg France by tunnel?
The channel doesn't get any deeper than 50m between Folkestone and Calais. It's 300m deep on the 'Galloway Route' on the Irish Sea. And it's full of unstable explosives.
It's probably possible but you'd have to really want to do it. It would cost a lot of money that could better spent extending the furlough until 2025.
Peter Hendy will ask those experts (people like me) and we'll get back to him the same day explaining why it's extremely expensive, fraught with engineering risk, would take years (and possibly nearly two decades) and the cost/benefit would be thousands to one the wrong way.
If he wants to make a difference lay on more domestic flights and faster and more frequent ferries and fastcats, subsidised if necessary for social/political reasons.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
We had that problem for a while unti loads of people complained to Japan and they came over and made management changes more conducive to a good office culture. Basically they put a normal person back on charge and she sacked all of the diversity officers and other bullshit hires that were trying to start twitter wars. Given that we're a Japanese investment bank, not a single person in the country gives a shit about what we think or realises we even exist.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
I see @kinabalu is behaving with his usual grace. He's probably getting himself wired up before he goes out hunting for TERFs and burning JK Rowling's books.
That was a spiteful response to a relatively gentle rebuke...
Yes. It was rather Trumpian! Which is to be expected from said responder.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
The post Trump GOP are going to have to work through a lot of difficult issues in the next 2 years. The 2022 Senate elections are easier ground than 2020 for the Dems, and in state contests there is plenty of scope for the Dems to advance too.
Meanwhile Trump will be facing further investigation and what comes out may well be utterly damning. Mitch McConnell´s health issues could leave a power vacuum at a critical moment, so I don´t think we have a clear handle on what the Republicans will be facing. I think the next candidate is not yet in the frame, though Marco Rubbio could be worth a cheeky punt.
Maybe the conclusion to be drawn from this election is not Goodwin's solution of just accepting the populist narrative and running with it but instead articulating your own vision underpinned by competence and strategy.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
While Goodwin might have ideas about how to specifically respond to the populist narrative, surely the main point would be that it exists and has to be acknowledged/taken into account at least, even if people respond differently to him? The selection of Biden chosen in part to appeal to people who may have voted Trump as part of that populist surge (even if he is hardly a Trumpesque figure) rather than someone who is simply hostile to people drawn in by such a narrative, would seem in keeping with that.
My point is that Biden did not accept the narrative, he refused to be drawn into it.
Yes, but he didn't ignore it in favour of fringe concerns was my point. He took the electorate as it was, not as he wanted it to be.
I agree with you but he did not accept the narrative either.
My point is that Goodwin would suggest Starmer needs to accept the narrative, he doesn't, he just needs to avoid culture wars altogether, Biden has shown it can be done.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Read what you posted yesterday. And them compare it with what you just said to TUD.
Given that HYUFD has been pleasuring himself mercilessly over populists (his description) such as Trump, Modi, Bolsonaro, Erdogan & Netanyahu (and how much they can help our own flaxen haired version) for the last couple of years, this is quite the turnaround.
Given what’s likely to happen in the early part of next year, I’d be amazed if Labour wasn’t clocking up 20 point leads and the Tories flirting with third place at some point midterm. Doesn’t mean they won’t win the next election though. You have to look at midterm polls very differently. The best PM numbers are more interesting, but it’s early days.
Last year, six months before the Tories won an 80 seat majority & 43% of the vote, ahead of Labour with 32%, there were polls with them in 3rd & 4th place, both in the teens
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I think it's wrong to assume the lesson to be learnt from this is that the Republicans need a more centrist candidate. We're forgetting they have made considerable House gains and that Biden's EC lead may look substantial but, like Trump's in 2016, it is resting on very thin margins. There is an argument to say that, if CV hadn't been around, Trump would have walked it. CV will probably not be around in 2024.
Hmm, I’m unsure he would have walked it. I think the result would have been similar but he might have squeaked an ECV margin. The better counterfactual is that Trump actually takes Covid seriously and gains back some suburban support.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I think it's wrong to assume the lesson to be learnt from this is that the Republicans need a more centrist candidate. We're forgetting they have made considerable House gains and that Biden's EC lead may look substantial but, like Trump's in 2016, it is resting on very thin margins. There is an argument to say that, if CV hadn't been around, Trump would have walked it. CV will probably not be around in 2024.
Hmm, I’m unsure he would have walked it. I think the result would have been similar but he might have squeaked an ECV margin. The better counterfactual is that Trump actually takes Covid seriously and gains back some suburban support.
COVID cases spiked in Wisconsin over the last month - that may well have sunk Trump there.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
If you've mistreated the dog you can't really complain when it tries to run off.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
If you owe the debt to your own central bank why does it matter whether you cancel it or not?
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
The post Trump GOP are going to have to work through a lot of difficult issues in the next 2 years. The 2022 Senate elections are easier ground than 2020 for the Dems, and in state contests there is plenty of scope for the Dems to advance too.
Meanwhile Trump will be facing further investigation and what comes out may well be utterly damning. Mitch McConnell´s health issues could leave a power vacuum at a critical moment, so I don´t think we have a clear handle on what the Republicans will be facing. I think the next candidate is not yet in the frame, though Marco Rubbio could be worth a cheeky punt.
I'd previously assumed Rubio had a good chance of being the GOP nominee given the Florida connections. But it increasingly looks like FL is safe for the GOP anyway.
Another interesting connection with Rubio is that he is in favour of statehood for PR - so if the Senate does end up being 51-49 it might just still happen.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
If you've mistreated the dog you can't really complain when it tries to run off.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Months ago, I thought it was unclear who out of Sanders and Biden would be more successful against Trump. The argument for Biden being well-understood here, the arguments for Sanders being entusiasm plus the centre has been redefined, and on the elite-vs-people scale he is actually more centrist.
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to the pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I think it's wrong to assume the lesson to be learnt from this is that the Republicans need a more centrist candidate. We're forgetting they have made considerable House gains and that Biden's EC lead may look substantial but, like Trump's in 2016, it is resting on very thin margins. There is an argument to say that, if CV hadn't been around, Trump would have walked it. CV will probably not be around in 2024.
Hmm, I’m unsure he would have walked it. I think the result would have been similar but he might have squeaked an ECV margin. The better counterfactual is that Trump actually takes Covid seriously and gains back some suburban support.
COVID cases spiked in Wisconsin over the last month - that may well have sunk Trump there.
And it's been insanely political there with the Governor-Court-lawmaker tussles over how the state should respond
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
If you owe the debt to your own central bank why does it matter whether you cancel it or not?
It doesn't at least if QE is never unwound. There's still a slim chance the QE gets unwound and then those central banks have to unload the debt to the markets or the refinancing bonds are sold to the markets.
Doing it collectively basically says "this isn't a default".
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
Would you even need an accord for that? We could just tell the BoE to remove that one line from their accounts,.
Edit: just saw your reply directly above. That makes sense.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
We had that problem for a while unti loads of people complained to Japan and they came over and made management changes more conducive to a good office culture. Basically they put a normal person back on charge and she sacked all of the diversity officers and other bullshit hires that were trying to start twitter wars. Given that we're a Japanese investment bank, not a single person in the country gives a shit about what we think or realises we even exist.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
And a majority of Scots now support Independence and the SNP are likely to win a majority in Scotland next year.
So why are your views on democracy so inconsistent, you're extremely partisan on the issue of what votes matter for which issue.
No they don't, the poll yesterday only had 47% including undecideds backing independence, so that is still not a majority once undecideds are included.
I would also as I have said even back voting for Scottish Labour in the central belt Holyrood constituencies next year to deny the SNP a Holyrood majority and Tory on the list
Just to repeat my early morning observartion. Alaska is on a knife edge
There are 16000 early votes to count. The existing early vote split 51/49 to Biden There are 116,730 mail votes to count. None have been counted
Biden is behind by 54,610
If the mail ballots split 74/26 then Biden wins.
No mail ballots have been counted.
I could recoup my losses on Trump with change with relatively small successful bets on Biden in AK and NC.
I must say I'm starting to get tempted.
Chasing losses. Always a smart gambling strategy...
To be serious about it, I have gone for a small one on NC. I am not sure if the totals in the screen grab in thread header includes military ballots etc, but races tend to slow down pause on 99% whilst more Dem vote comes in every day.
I don’t see Dem getting close in Alaska. I agree with Marquees post below, if Alaska got close it really would look suspicious.
Comments
She was right. She's going to finish the job in Georgia before doing anything else.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Keir would not go far wrong to learn from this election.
I mean I've been banging on about my legendary modesty for years.
Not. Again.
Running a successful TV channel isn't something that relies simply on being a big celeb. It needs to be a professional outfit with a broad output that appeals to people long term, and attracts advertisers. It also takes serious investment.
As for being an independent candidate, Trump wants to win. Being a spoiler who allows Biden cruise to a second term (or Harris to a first) against a divided opposition just isn't going to appeal - that's a game for Losers.
Or would you laugh at the idea of Britain being connected to eg France by tunnel?
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/w35fkmlez4/TheTimes_VI_Tracker_201105_W1.pdf
the LA Dogers travel to San Francisco (Giants) for a four day series and the series is tied 2-2.
You cannot claim that each match is independent because the starting pitchers will be different each day. Furthermore, if today the Dogers "beat up" on a Giants starting pitcher who gets substituted early in the game, then the relief pitchers will have to pitch for much longer. This will make them less effective at pitching in the game tomorrow.
What happened to the bridge Johnson supported? Seems to have quietly disappeared.
I'm not hugely keen on all the woke stuff myself, and it's one of the reasons I am less positive toward my own party than I used to be. But I at least have the excuse of being almost retired. For you it seems to be an obsession that you are determined to lever in as the conclusion of almost any piece of data. Take care, for that path will see you moving to Epping...
Meanwhile Fox is advertising that pan which you can drive your truck over, again. We're missing out, this side of the pond.
They matter next May for the Locals but right now its good to see but not very meaningful
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1324665895206162433?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1324569910538915840?s=20
I am pleased to read your second paragraph though, which is progress. If you want to know why I get so riled about it it's because I get it every day at work, so it agitates me (as I can't really contest it without great risk to myself).
We will see this next hour or three.
I don't think the investment is an issue, it is more that advertisers would not want to be associated with it. So he would have to do it on a subscription basis. I think he would get a good chunk of subscribers but obviously it limits his audience.
So why are your views on democracy so inconsistent, you're extremely partisan on the issue of what votes matter for which issue.
On the rest, I agree. He does put the Trumpian view well. When I said he was an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy, that is exactly what I meant. I used the word "fanboy" because of my contempt for the view.
Re the betting angle, he called it wrong and clearly wrong, but to the extent he stopped people betting on a Biden landslide, that was a service rendered.
This is a fair and balanced assessment, I think.
Ditto me. I called it right - Trump Toast and not that close - but also wrong. Trump performed quite a bit better than I expected.
Besides which I largely *agree* with their official values (which aren't political) it's just the interpretation and political conclusions they reach off the back of them I don't agree with.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
It's probably possible but you'd have to really want to do it. It would cost a lot of money that could better spent extending the furlough until 2025.
If he wants to make a difference lay on more domestic flights and faster and more frequent ferries and fastcats, subsidised if necessary for social/political reasons.
Meanwhile Trump will be facing further investigation and what comes out may well be utterly damning. Mitch McConnell´s health issues could leave a power vacuum at a critical moment, so I don´t think we have a clear handle on what the Republicans will be facing. I think the next candidate is not yet in the frame, though Marco Rubbio could be worth a cheeky punt.
My point is that Goodwin would suggest Starmer needs to accept the narrative, he doesn't, he just needs to avoid culture wars altogether, Biden has shown it can be done.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
Another interesting connection with Rubio is that he is in favour of statehood for PR - so if the Senate does end up being 51-49 it might just still happen.
The Trump Clinton Alaska Mail Vote Split
Clinton: 22985
Trump': 32529
There was quite a strong 3rd party figure that I haven't extracted.
Still approaching 70k if they arent
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to the pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
Clinton: 18383
Trump: 17028
So no change from the 2020 proportion.
Doing it collectively basically says "this isn't a default".
Edit: just saw your reply directly above. That makes sense.
I would also as I have said even back voting for Scottish Labour in the central belt Holyrood constituencies next year to deny the SNP a Holyrood majority and Tory on the list
I don’t see Dem getting close in Alaska. I agree with Marquees post below, if Alaska got close it really would look suspicious.