politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not surprisingly YouGov finds that on EU people trust thos

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

This is a number that Hillary should pray it does not replicate nationally:

https://twitter.com/CBSNLive/status/730152419452178432

It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...

As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia)
http://www.270towin.com/

If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago.
Also N.Carolina.

k

There was no poll in N.C. this week.

The latest poll was 44-44 in N.Carolina.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf

Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are

Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state

https://1ttd918ylvt17775r1u6ng1adc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CivitasNCPollApril2016.pdf

Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut

Chris Christie's former pollster is crap, over the same period PPP who are a long time reliable pollster actually headquarted in N.Carolina has Trump in a tie.

Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump

Actually it says a lot.
Like the Miami-Dade poll yesterday pointed that Trump is actually quite close to Hillary in Florida, the PPP N.Carolina poll points to Trump being about where Romney was in the swing states.

But this is what the actual conversation about the US Presidential race should be, it's about states not national vote numbers.

No it points to Trump doing worse than Romney is doing and when Romney only got 206 EC votes if Trump is having to defend any of them he has next to no chance, if he loses a N Carolina or an Arizona it does not matter if he wins Ohio and Pennsylvania by a landslide, Hillary wins the presidency!

He can afford to lose 1 or 2 as long as he wins the big 3: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

HYUFD said:

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

This is a number that Hillary should pray it does not replicate nationally:

https://twitter.com/CBSNLive/status/730152419452178432

It won't nationally, but it could be a problem in Pennsylvania and Ohio...

As I said in the last thread Hillary can win 276 to 262 if she adds Arizona (she leads in the latest poll thanks to Hispanic voters) even if she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida (and obviously West Virginia)
http://www.270towin.com/

If Hillary loses Pennsylvania she might also lose Connecticut, Trump was down by 7 there a month ago.
Also N.Carolina.

k

There was no poll in N.C. this week.

The latest poll was 44-44 in N.Carolina.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NC_42716.pdf

Trump's poll numbers in most of the N.East are

Civitas is actually the latest and had Clinton 12 points ahead of Trump in the state

https://1ttd918ylvt17775r1u6ng1adc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CivitasNCPollApril2016.pdf

Pennsylvania is possible for Trump but Clinton is more likely to win Utah than Trump is to win Connecticut

Even a tie in a state Romney won by 2% is not great news for Trump

Actually it says a lot.
Like the Miami-Dade po.

No it points to Trump doing worse than Romney is doing and when Romney only got 206 EC votes if Trump is havi!

He can afford to lose 1 or 2 as long as he wins the big 3: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

Very narrow to any other movements, if Hillary is losing the F.O.P. states then she is definitely losing N.C. or some other smaller states in the east.

And as Trump likes to say, he hasn't started on Hillary yet. It will get bloody and don't think Trump could have hoped to be placed any better at this point.

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?

Plato_Says said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?

If only Andy was running for POTUS

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Speedy said:

This is a number that Hillary should pray it does not replicate nationally:

https://twitter.com/CBSNLive/status/730152419452178432

I
http://www.270towin.com/

It had previously been a solid Republican state prior to Bill Clinton's first term.

For Bush Snr who is miles apart philosophically from Trump

Connecticut turned Democrat over the collapse of the New England manufacturing base during Bush Snr., in one word NAFTA.

Trump blasting NAFTA is why he is doing much better than normal in the rust belts of america.

It turned Dem

We are talking about 1992 here, New England had a big manufacturing industry before NAFTA as you can see from the commentary of election night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgCDcGEnSZE

Even if it had a manufacturing industry in 1992, Finance now makes up the largest share of Connecticut's economy at 16.9%, followed by real estate at 15%, manufacturing now just represents 11.9%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut#Economy

You fell into my area now.

9.9% of workers in Connecticut work in manufacturing.
12.6% in Ohio.
9.8% in Pennsylvania.

Connecticut is not that different, I'm focusing on workers because GDP doesn't vote.

Indiana has the largest share in the USA with 16.8% .
Hawaii has the lowest with 2.2% .

So Connecticut is not a major manufacturing state like Ohio or Indiana, it is largely Manhattan commuter belt (of course Pennsylvania has some big manufacturing areas around Pittsburgh but they are swamped by the big city of Philadelphia which is why it is likely to stay blue)

If Trump wins Pennsylvania then on the basis of state polls and the primary vote totals Connecticut maybe close.
The profile and the history of that state agrees with that.

Why? Obama won Connecticut by 18% and Pennsylvania by 5%, if Trump won Pennsylvania by 1% Clinton would still win Connecticut by 12% on a uniform swing

HYUFD said:

Plato_Says said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

No he can't, if Hillary wins NC but loses Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania and all other 2012 states stay the same she wins 280-258; if Hillary wins Arizona but loses those 3 she wins 276-262
http://www.270towin.com/

Are you as certain about these Clinton predictions as you were about Andy Burnham becoming leader, or Hilary Benn leading a Howard-esque coup against Corbyn?

If only Andy was running for POTUS

Well Mayor of Manchester is almost the same

David_Evershed said:

If Trump can become POTUS then anyone can.

It's the American dream.

Trump is living the dream.

RodCrosby said:

David_Evershed said:

If Trump can become POTUS then anyone can.

It's the American dream.

Trump is living the dream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtSLrcHMyA

David_Evershed said:

In West Virginia Sanders beating Clinton 50% to 40% and

Trump getting 75%

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36259271

Richard_Tyndall said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

runnymede said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, I wish I shared the unshakeable, ideological, quasi-religious confidence of the Leavers that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians including the respected ones, are wrong.

Needle stuck Richard?

Or is there a hidden meaning if we read it backwards?

No, I'm simply stating things as I see them. Which is all I ever do. I'm genuinely amazed at the intellectual arrogance of the Leavers, that they can dismiss all these voices completely without any doubts.

I probably shouldn't be - it's lack of confidence manifesting itself as over-confidence, isn't it?

Nope. What all those voices have in common is that they benefit from the existence of supranational entities like the EU. But as soon as you start to look at anyone below their elitist ranks you see that the supposed benefits and the support drop off dramatically. This is why organisations like the CBI which are dominated by large multinationals are strongly in favour whilst as you move down into SME territory - which actually represents vastly more companies - support drops considerably.

The elite have much to lose from the UK withdrawing from the EU. Normal people equally have much to gain.

The arrogance is all on the side of the Remain elite.

viewcode said:

Plato_Says said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.

By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.

I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.

Yes they are. And no, they aren't.

The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.

But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.

So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.

viewcode said:

Plato_Says said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Perhaps Richard, people are beginning to consider that President Obama, eight former US treasury secretaries dating as far back as Nixon, the OECD, the IMF, the NIESR, the CBI, the TUC, the Bank of England, five former Nato Secretaries-General, the vast majority of academic economists, all the major international investment banks, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nearly all Labour politicians, represent their own organisational interests and views on this issue, rather than being a wellspring of infallible truth and/or delphic predictions.

By the way, you forgot doddery Generals, Emma Thompson, the SNP, the scientists (all of them), Oxford University, and Francois Hollande.

I'm wondering when Remain will notice that endless appeals to authority aren't working.

Yes they are. And no, they aren't.

The arguments from authority have achieved one objective: the shutting down of the "open, outward looking" LEAVE argument. Prior to the campaign and for some years prior, LEAVE had put forward the possibility of better deals elsewhere. But whether you think those deals are real options or not (I don't: others do), they are now not being spoken of overmuch - Boris put forward the Canada option, the world giggled: Gove advanced the Albania option, the world went...well, "meh". So that part's done.

But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and for about two weeks(?) LEAVE has been immigration-based: immigration will kill the NHS, steal your house prices, make you join the Euro, and give you bum cancer. If you look at Boris's five (or is it six) points, they all present migration as a threat or present the EU as an invader of territory ("How will you prevent the EU from forcing the Euro/EU army upon us, huh, huh, etc..."): a profoundly inward looking - and technically paranoid - stance. But just because a stance is inward looking doesn't make it wrong or unattractive to voters, and REMAIN has yet to develop a counter to this. Consequently support is ebbing at about 1% per week(?) and as in submarines and spaceships, a slow leak will kill you.

So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.

Tim_B said:

Don't try asking for a can of Budweiser in the US this summer......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/05/10/budweiser-renames-cans-beer-america-anheuser-busch/84176886/

Tim_B said:

Don't try asking for a can of Budweiser in the US this summer......

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/05/10/budweiser-renames-cans-beer-america-anheuser-busch/84176886/

taffys said:

''So returning to your point: arguments from authority were necessary to shut down one prong of the LEAVE attack, but there are diminishing returns (pun!) and they are ineffective for the other prong.''

By 'authority' you mean people who think they know better what's best for Britain than the ordinary British voter.