Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump gets marked bounce in first round of post-convention

SystemSystem Posts: 12,685
edited July 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump gets marked bounce in first round of post-convention polling and now has clear national lead

Any idea that Hillary Clinton’s election in November is a forgone conclusion have been shaken in the first batch of post-Republican Convention polls. As the table show he’s got a clear leads.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Golly.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,579
    Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.

    in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,446
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    We need to wait until three weeks after conventions are over to get a real handle on public opinion.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    tpfkar said:

    Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.

    in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???

    the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    FPT
    WTF
    Byron York ✔ @ByronYork
    CNN poll Clinton honest and trustworthy: 68 no 30 yes. http://ow.ly/MFfa302zoMt
    :shocked:
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    @ kle4 FPT

    Out of interest, what do you consider the modern age?

    I just missed the end of Barrington's test career, but he had better bowling and batting averages than Root and, significantly, his batting averages improved with higher quality opposition. Against Australia, he averaged something like 68!

    PS I am a huge Root fan, so this is not meant in any way to detract from what he is accomplishing.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    FPT
    WTF
    Byron York ✔ @ByronYork
    CNN poll Clinton honest and trustworthy: 68 no 30 yes. http://ow.ly/MFfa302zoMt
    :shocked:


    I guess it's the 30% that is shocking you.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    To have a chance Trump had to get a bounce which put him in the lead, that's happened. Still think Clinton will win but Trump could easily pull this off if he can put together a good campaign. Debates are going to be huge.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,115
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    Not altogether convinced it will. Hillary's advert could have been straight out the Trump playbook.

    Reversed my £300 levelling off at any rate (At the cost of a few quid or so), 3.3 clear value for Trump now.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,387
    rcs1000 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    We need to wait until three weeks after conventions are over to get a real handle on public opinion.
    I think we should wait 3 months to be certain...
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    SandyRentool said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    We need to wait until three weeks after conventions are over to get a real handle on public opinion.
    I think we should wait 3 months to be certain...
    "There's only one poll that counts..."
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    MTimT said:

    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    FPT
    WTF
    Byron York ✔ @ByronYork
    CNN poll Clinton honest and trustworthy: 68 no 30 yes. http://ow.ly/MFfa302zoMt
    :shocked:

    I guess it's the 30% that is shocking you.
    Well almost.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,115
    edited July 2016
    Hillary's ad

    The unplayed ad even has a bloody freeze frame of one of Trump's most nakedly populist policies ffsake.

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/757290614815727616
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    SandyRentool said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    We need to wait until three weeks after conventions are over to get a real handle on public opinion.
    I think we should wait 3 months to be certain...
    Doesn't do much for value in the betting markets though ...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    ThreeQuidder said:

    SandyRentool said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    We need to wait until three weeks after conventions are over to get a real handle on public opinion.
    I think we should wait 3 months to be certain...
    "There's only one poll that counts..."
    Traditionally, it is only after Labour day in September that the American public pay any attention to the race.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    OGH - Strongly agree that the betting markets have got this one wrong at current prices.

    The more I reflect on it, the more I think Tim Kaine was an inspired choice. OK, it will piss of Sanders' most ardent supporters, but what marginal effect will it have on suppressing Clinton's vote from that pool? I would have thought that very few Sanders voters would withhold their vote from Hillary over the Kaine selection who were not already intending to do so.

    Where it could help her is in those GOPers - and I know many such - who cannot bring themselves to vote for Trump, but are very uncomfortable with not voting. It might steer a fair number of them from Johnson to Clinton, on the basis that Trump must be beaten, and Kaine makes it much less difficult to swallow the Clinton ticket.

    Overall, as I said on the previous thread, I have Clinton a slight favorite at the moment, but with the caveat that there is a distinct possibility that Trump will crush her, even without taking into account the number of Black Swans that may be out there for Clinton with Russian hackers.
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Warren would, if she was announced as taking on a major policy role. Veep is a pretty thankless cheerleading task.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,645
    Pakistan 2 down...
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Sanders is speaking today. Big call for him as to how to pitch it in the light of the email leaks and Hillary falling ratings. He has little to lose either way but I'm expecting a decidedly luke-warm endorsement of Hillary (if any) and a full-throated restatement of the policies which pushed him as far as they did. This will be his last big chance to affect her platform.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Morris_Dancer said:

    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.

    Maybe I am being one of the blinkered, but for all her flaws I cannot see it being close when push comes to shove, and now we're in the 'it's a close race' territory, which pops up even when it isn't close.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.

    The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Morris_Dancer said:

    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.

    Probably. But this election is exceptional. Trump is something very different to usual presidential races. Has anyone with no elected public service whatsoever ever been nominated without the elite's support (Ikea was sort of co-opted iirc)? It is a Teaparty insurgency and god knows how HRC is supposed to campaign against the wall of fear, doubt and post-truth nonsense.

    It'll be dirty, very dirty, that's for sure.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Could Clinton be the Will Straw of American politics?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    MTimT said:

    @ kle4 FPT

    Out of interest, what do you consider the modern age?

    I just missed the end of Barrington's test career, but he had better bowling and batting averages than Root and, significantly, his batting averages improved with higher quality opposition. Against Australia, he averaged something like 68!

    PS I am a huge Root fan, so this is not meant in any way to detract from what he is accomplishing.

    By modern age I was thinking post-WW2. Admittedly I will not be aware of some greats from the period in the immediate aftermath of WW2.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    I wonder if it's more the Democrat email scandal than the GOP convention? I've not had time to check the data yet and whether Bernies' supporters are still as resolutely behind Hillary as they were.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,645
    edited July 2016
    Suicide bomber in germany named as Mohamed Deleel, or as the bbc will eventually report "known locally as Micky D".
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    MTimT said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.

    The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
    Don't be daft. Of course I have no difficulty understanding that, which is why I consistently make money from political betting. My point was, of course, that the convention itself was an absolute shambles. Mind you, it looks as though the Dem one will also be a shambles.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Warren would, if she was announced as taking on a major policy role. Veep is a pretty thankless cheerleading task.
    Warren won't be given anything, Trump would destroy her with the fake Native American stuff, he already forced Hillary to pick a less than optimal running mate because of that.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,341
    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I agree with that sentiment Max - but think it is more because of the underlying issues that professional politicians have tried to paper over rather than tackle; Dislocation, cultural disintregration, inequality of opportunity, the failure of globalisation etc

    To be honest, I think I could probably repost my 'why Leave isn't getting trounced' posts, changing a few words, party names and leading characters, for 'why Trump isn't getting trounced'.

    I called Leave, and I stick by my April call: Trump having a 55% chance of beating Hilary.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    rottenborough said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.

    Probably. But this election is exceptional. Trump is something very different to usual presidential races. Has anyone with no elected public service whatsoever ever been nominated without the elite's support (Ikea was sort of co-opted iirc)? It is a Teaparty insurgency and god knows how HRC is supposed to campaign against the wall of fear, doubt and post-truth nonsense.

    It'll be dirty, very dirty, that's for sure.
    Good autocorrect :)
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Pulpstar said:

    Hillary's ad

    The unplayed ad even has a bloody freeze frame of one of Trump's most nakedly populist policies ffsake.

    ttps://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/757290614815727616

    I watched Hillary's ad the other day and large chunks of it made me think Trump was right.

    It's a weird experience to see an attack ad that made me wonder at times who'd paid for it.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    MP_SE said:

    Could Clinton be the Will Straw of American politics?

    The Eddie Izzard?
  • glwglw Posts: 10,516
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    MaxPB said:

    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Warren would, if she was announced as taking on a major policy role. Veep is a pretty thankless cheerleading task.
    Warren won't be given anything, Trump would destroy her with the fake Native American stuff, he already forced Hillary to pick a less than optimal running mate because of that.
    Clinton wanted Kaine.

    Anyway, here's a few weeks before the last election.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/264683-gallup-romney-extends-lead-over-obama-nationally

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    ToryJim said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
    Perhaps people just actually bought the message? Niall Ferguson was writing in ST yesterday about a historical "paranoid" streak that exists in America i.e. things 'aint what they used to be and it's all the fault of THEM (usually in conspiracy with the monied elite).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,446
    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I think the reason why Hillary is rightfully the favourite is that Trump is going to get utterly creamed in some demographics. Take New Mexico: in 2012, Obama got 53% there. There is almost no chance - given Trump's comments about Mexicans - that Clinton is going to lose that state. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

    Now, weakness in New Mexico and Nevada (both of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) doesn't completely close the door to a Trump victory, and I suspect his protectionist message will go down very well in the rust belt. But it does make it incrementally harder. For that reason, I'd go with a narrow Hillary victory.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    Morris_Dancer said:

    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.

    Quite possibly. History tends to forget the losers but were she to lose, I can't think of any comparable figure who'd built up such a commanding position *twice* only to miss out both times to such peripheral figures.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,387
    MP_SE said:

    Could Clinton be the Will Straw of American politics?

    Or the Eddie Izzard?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    glw said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
    Good summary. Sadly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,645
    edited July 2016
    Again John Harris video is worth a watch. Life long unionised labour voting trump in primaries despite union telling them to go and vote sanders over Clinton.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Warren would, if she was announced as taking on a major policy role. Veep is a pretty thankless cheerleading task.
    Warren won't be given anything, Trump would destroy her with the fake Native American stuff, he already forced Hillary to pick a less than optimal running mate because of that.
    Clinton wanted Kaine.

    Anyway, here's a few weeks before the last election.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/264683-gallup-romney-extends-lead-over-obama-nationally

    And the day before a very similar political event Remain were up in the polls.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    MTimT said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.

    The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
    No, but getting a bounce means that he's pulling in new support, presumably from swing voters of one nature or another. And all voters can see a mismanaged convention with accusations of plagarism and a failure to secure the endorsement of his nearest rival. It wasn't a great advert for the GOP.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited July 2016
    glw said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.
    Yes, but that was all known before the convention.

    It's strange how conventions do change the polls, but they often do, at least in the short term.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,446
    Apparently, Hillary's speech is going to involve whole passages lifted from Reagan, and then some fake speech writer will be fired.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632

    FPT
    williamglenn said:

    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Dromedary said:

    The Clinton campaign accuses Trump of being backed by Russian intelligence.

    "I think when you put all this together, it's a disturbing picture," says her campaign manager Robby Mook. Well yes, I suppose you could say that the Kremlin being close to installing its man in the Oval Office might be considered "disturbing" by some. The Clinton side's problem is that they can't shout accusations in the way that Trump shouted about Obama's birthplace and will shout about Benghazi.

    Desperate stuff from the Clinton camp.
    But true, Trump is the Kremlin candidate. We should all be worried by the Trump/Putin connection.

    Because good relations between the West and Russia would be a disaster?

    We've taken the approach of treating Russia like a naughty schoolboy ever since Putin first rose to power. It's not working and is not in our interests.
    Agreed

    Putins Russia is not the USSR and there are many far worse regimes that the west happily breaks bread with.

    However the Putin regimes social policy has expressly repudiated progressive liberalism which makes it beyond the pale in the eyes of right thinking middle class types in the west. He is a Ghhassstly little man, worse than Farage.....
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    edited July 2016
    MaxPB said:

    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Thrak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Warren would, if she was announced as taking on a major policy role. Veep is a pretty thankless cheerleading task.
    Warren won't be given anything, Trump would destroy her with the fake Native American stuff, he already forced Hillary to pick a less than optimal running mate because of that.
    Clinton wanted Kaine.

    Anyway, here's a few weeks before the last election.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/264683-gallup-romney-extends-lead-over-obama-nationally

    And the day before a very similar political event Remain were up in the polls.
    Exactly, polls mean little and this far out they mean less than that.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I think the reason why Hillary is rightfully the favourite is that Trump is going to get utterly creamed in some demographics. Take New Mexico: in 2012, Obama got 53% there. There is almost no chance - given Trump's comments about Mexicans - that Clinton is going to lose that state. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

    Now, weakness in New Mexico and Nevada (both of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) doesn't completely close the door to a Trump victory, and I suspect his protectionist message will go down very well in the rust belt. But it does make it incrementally harder. For that reason, I'd go with a narrow Hillary victory.
    Which is, as I said on the previous topic, why I've gone from ambivalent about Trump to worried. Free trade has lifted billions out of poverty. We should be pressuring China to open up more and properly float RMB, not putting up our own barriers or leaving the WTO.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,361
    rottenborough said:

    ToryJim said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
    Perhaps people just actually bought the message? Niall Ferguson was writing in ST yesterday about a historical "paranoid" streak that exists in America i.e. things 'aint what they used to be and it's all the fault of THEM (usually in conspiracy with the monied elite).
    Oh indeed. No-one does witchhunts like the Americans. Not in apparently open, democratic countries anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,895
    I'm off for a bit. For those who missed it, my post-race analysis of Hungary, with some consideration of the title races, is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/hungary-post-race-analysis-2016.html
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    edited July 2016
    glw said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    I don't think it is very complicated. Trump is as mad as hell about the same things that the US populace are as mad as hell about. It doesn't matter that the convention looks like a clown show, that Trump can't read an autocue, that nothing Trump proposes makes much sense, if Trump at least seems to care about the same things as many other Americans. Clinton on the other hand seems quite divorced from mainstream America, and doesn't offer anything new. For the many Americans who have "had it up to here" Clinton offers nothing.

    I think it all goes back to the Crash.

    Professional politicians (and the "establishment" , bankers, etc.) gave the world the Great Recession. At the time of the Great Recession the public wanted professional politicians to get them through the crisis, now the crisis is over it's time for the public to get retribution.

    Each individual country also has it's own special circumstances, so for example in the UK, I'm sure the aftermath of Iraq and MP's expense's are playing their part. In France it's Islamic terrorism and so on.

    But the common the denominator across the western world is anger over the the fall in wages and living standards since the Great Recession.

    The last time we had an economic crash on a similar scale to 2008/2009 (1930's) it resulted in WWII. Hopefully this time things won't get that bad but I suspect in ten years time we'll look back at some of the things certain nations have done and think that Brexit was actually a fairly "mild" expression of anger at the political class....

  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I think the reason why Hillary is rightfully the favourite is that Trump is going to get utterly creamed in some demographics. Take New Mexico: in 2012, Obama got 53% there. There is almost no chance - given Trump's comments about Mexicans - that Clinton is going to lose that state. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

    Now, weakness in New Mexico and Nevada (both of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) doesn't completely close the door to a Trump victory, and I suspect his protectionist message will go down very well in the rust belt. But it does make it incrementally harder. For that reason, I'd go with a narrow Hillary victory.
    Which is, as I said on the previous topic, why I've gone from ambivalent about Trump to worried. Free trade has lifted billions out of poverty. We should be pressuring China to open up more and properly float RMB, not putting up our own barriers or leaving the WTO.
    He will be president not dictator and he can only do eight years.

    There are enough checks and balances to deal with a capricious president in the US.

    Enough crap presidents and you might see constitutional reform with the presidents wings clipped and congress appointing someone to exercise the power on his behalf.....what would such a post be called?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    nunu said:

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

    That's a good long watch with some great observations.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    nunu said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

    I'd heard about this video but not seen it. Thanks for posting. Very telling analysis.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    MTimT said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    It is very clear, Richard, that you have difficulty understanding anyone who does not agree with your world view.

    The answer - Trump is not appealing to people like you or me.
    Crooked Shillary! all Trump needs to do is repeat that ad nauseum.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    ThreeQuidder said:

    rottenborough said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    If Clinton loses, does she go down in history as the worst loser in US political history?

    She went into 2008 with enormous advantages and lost to an admittedly impressive long shot (apparently Obama was 50/1). This time she faced almost no competition within the Democrats and just edged out a socialist (who was pretty unlucky with the first few contests) and is now struggling to beat a hugely divisive Republican.

    Probably. But this election is exceptional. Trump is something very different to usual presidential races. Has anyone with no elected public service whatsoever ever been nominated without the elite's support (Ikea was sort of co-opted iirc)? It is a Teaparty insurgency and god knows how HRC is supposed to campaign against the wall of fear, doubt and post-truth nonsense.

    It'll be dirty, very dirty, that's for sure.
    Good autocorrect :)
    :+1:
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    SandyRentool said:

    MP_SE said:

    Could Clinton be the Will Straw of American politics?

    Or the Eddie Izzard?
    Great minds, Mr Rentool :)
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I agree with that sentiment Max - but think it is more because of the underlying issues that professional politicians have tried to paper over rather than tackle; Dislocation, cultural disintregration, inequality of opportunity, the failure of globalisation etc

    To be honest, I think I could probably repost my 'why Leave isn't getting trounced' posts, changing a few words, party names and leading characters, for 'why Trump isn't getting trounced'.

    I called Leave, and I stick by my April call: Trump having a 55% chance of beating Hilary.
    I with you on this. She's the ultimate lizard politician. She's none of her husband's natural charisma. Trump's got the crazy factor, but he speaks human in a way she doesn't.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,844
    nunu said:

    tpfkar said:

    Remain kept talking about how much Putin wanted a Leave victory. I never understood why - it never seemed to get any traction outside the core campaigns. So not convinced this will be any more influential here.

    in any other year, it should be a walk in the park for Clinton. But in 2016???

    the way Putin has been goading HM government since the vote to leave it seems he was actually afraid of Britain leaving.
    Potentially yes. The assumption that Putin wanted a Leave victory assumes a breakup of the EU entirely which would likely (but not certainly) benefit Russia as the new biggest kid on the block.

    If a Non-UK EU instead integrates further and faster it could become a more realistic alternative bloc, hence a negative to Putin.

    Brexit represents many unknown possible accounts, none of which can be controlled or even really influenced by Putin. Therefore I lean to him probably preferring Remain because it's the known quantity, hence he can plot his next moves with all the pieces still on the table.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    Alistair said:

    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I agree with that sentiment Max - but think it is more because of the underlying issues that professional politicians have tried to paper over rather than tackle; Dislocation, cultural disintregration, inequality of opportunity, the failure of globalisation etc

    To be honest, I think I could probably repost my 'why Leave isn't getting trounced' posts, changing a few words, party names and leading characters, for 'why Trump isn't getting trounced'.

    I called Leave, and I stick by my April call: Trump having a 55% chance of beating Hilary.
    I'd say the race is TCTC. Which is why Trump at 3.3 on BF is a good price. May as well make some money on it even if he is a rubbish POTUS. Though I don't think Hillary will be any good either.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alistair said:

    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
    Thanks.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,844
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    Sympathy? Ted Cruz is one of the few people more widely disliked than Trump - his speech must've backfired - sympathy for Trump against a bitter loser etc. If the NeverTrump movement has Cruz as its cheerleader i'd rather take my chances on Trump.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Wow, Trump on -5 favourability and Clinton on -14. The DNC leaks are really hurting IMO.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    Paul_Bedfordshire said:

    There are enough checks and balances to deal with a capricious president in the US.

    He can kill you with a flying killer robot. There are no meaningful checks on this power.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I think the reason why Hillary is rightfully the favourite is that Trump is going to get utterly creamed in some demographics. Take New Mexico: in 2012, Obama got 53% there. There is almost no chance - given Trump's comments about Mexicans - that Clinton is going to lose that state. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

    Now, weakness in New Mexico and Nevada (both of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) doesn't completely close the door to a Trump victory, and I suspect his protectionist message will go down very well in the rust belt. But it does make it incrementally harder. For that reason, I'd go with a narrow Hillary victory.
    I know that Trump is currently being creamed in those demographics, but listen to his own analysis of his overall strategy. Do what you have to do to win each stage of the campaign and to kill off each competitor, one at a time. Adjust your strategy as you progress through that process to address the new challenges of the new stage.

    Trump knows he has to address his bad numbers in at least the Latino demographic (less so the Black demo). he has explicitly stated as much, and he has a few months to work on it. While you and I would agree he has set himself a Herculean task to undo the damage he has done, you have to admit that he has been very effective in executing his strategy thus far and thus we should admit that he might know what he is doing and he might actually be aware of his capabilities.

    Scary, but too many have dismissed him and his abilities to their detriment already.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,115
    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,193
    PlatoSaid said:

    Mortimer said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I agree with that sentiment Max - but think it is more because of the underlying issues that professional politicians have tried to paper over rather than tackle; Dislocation, cultural disintregration, inequality of opportunity, the failure of globalisation etc

    To be honest, I think I could probably repost my 'why Leave isn't getting trounced' posts, changing a few words, party names and leading characters, for 'why Trump isn't getting trounced'.

    I called Leave, and I stick by my April call: Trump having a 55% chance of beating Hilary.
    I with you on this. She's the ultimate lizard politician. She's none of her husband's natural charisma. Trump's got the crazy factor, but he speaks human in a way she doesn't.
    He really doesn't. The trouble for Hillary is that she has baggage. You can't be in public life having poison spread about you without some of it sinking into the public consciousness.

    The trouble is that Hillary is a lot better than many people realise or will give credence to and is nowhere near as bad as her detractors assert.

    The crap that had been levelled against her would never be contemplated against a male politician which speaks to the enduring misogyny in public life.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    MTimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    For the same reason that the disorganised Leave campaign won. Fewer people than ever seem to care about professional politics. Look at the two most professional politicians in the UK (Dave and George) both got beaten by an amateur campaign. Remember, Hillary is being presented in exactly the same way as Remain, less bad than the alternative. That didn't work here and I'm not sure it's going to work in the US.
    I think the reason why Hillary is rightfully the favourite is that Trump is going to get utterly creamed in some demographics. Take New Mexico: in 2012, Obama got 53% there. There is almost no chance - given Trump's comments about Mexicans - that Clinton is going to lose that state. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

    Now, weakness in New Mexico and Nevada (both of which were won by Bush in 2000 and 2004) doesn't completely close the door to a Trump victory, and I suspect his protectionist message will go down very well in the rust belt. But it does make it incrementally harder. For that reason, I'd go with a narrow Hillary victory.
    I know that Trump is currently being creamed in those demographics, but listen to his own analysis of his overall strategy. Do what you have to do to win each stage of the campaign and to kill off each competitor, one at a time. Adjust your strategy as you progress through that process to address the new challenges of the new stage.

    Trump knows he has to address his bad numbers in at least the Latino demographic (less so the Black demo). he has explicitly stated as much, and he has a few months to work on it. While you and I would agree he has set himself a Herculean task to undo the damage he has done, you have to admit that he has been very effective in executing his strategy thus far and thus we should admit that he might know what he is doing and he might actually be aware of his capabilities.

    Scary, but too many have dismissed him and his abilities to their detriment already.
    It may well work, bearing in mind the old adage that voters (as in real, general voters, not primary, registered voters) only pay any attention after Labor Day in US. By then Trump will have had a partial reset.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,792
    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alistair said:

    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
    Thanks.
    I'm on my mobile, but it looks like they didn't poll any 18-34 year olds (page 19)

    Or am I misreading it?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I always knew that Trump would come up trumps. :D
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
    Trump seems good at raising turnout. I can see him getting blue collars to the voting booths who haven't voted for a long time.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Live Q&A about the future of Labour on the Telegraph website now
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
    Young people went out and voted for Obama, but blue collar workers stayed home. They have done since 2004 IMO. Hillary engenders nowhere near the same enthusiasm as Obama (and Sanders) among students and young voters. In fact I would guess that in terms of enthusiasm Trump has much higher levels of engagement among students than Hillary. She seems to get the same kind of support hat Remain got here. The similarities between the referendum and November are uncanny.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,222
    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    david_herdson said:

    rottenborough said:

    ToryJim said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    One does have to wonder how THAT convention produced a boost for Trump.

    Expectations. He didn't fall over himself or set himself on fire. This will have pleasantly surprised most folk.
    Perhaps people just actually bought the message? Niall Ferguson was writing in ST yesterday about a historical "paranoid" streak that exists in America i.e. things 'aint what they used to be and it's all the fault of THEM (usually in conspiracy with the monied elite).
    Oh indeed. No-one does witchhunts like the Americans. Not in apparently open, democratic countries anyway.
    As a US novellist said the other day (I forget who), the trouble with witch hunts is they rarely stop at one witch.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alistair said:

    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
    Thanks.
    I'm on my mobile, but it looks like they didn't poll any 18-34 year olds (page 19)

    Or am I misreading it?
    I think they don't have enough responses to get a statistically significant subsample.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,984
    Blue_rog said:

    Live Q&A about the future of Labour on the Telegraph website now

    That'll be short then?
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
    From crosstabs it appara that Trump's support is more likely to be not registered to vote. He will need a big registration campaign to get the headline figures.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,823
    edited July 2016
    MTimT said:

    I know that Trump is currently being creamed in those demographics, but listen to his own analysis of his overall strategy. Do what you have to do to win each stage of the campaign and to kill off each competitor, one at a time. Adjust your strategy as you progress through that process to address the new challenges of the new stage.

    Trump knows he has to address his bad numbers in at least the Latino demographic (less so the Black demo). he has explicitly stated as much, and he has a few months to work on it. While you and I would agree he has set himself a Herculean task to undo the damage he has done, you have to admit that he has been very effective in executing his strategy thus far and thus we should admit that he might know what he is doing and he might actually be aware of his capabilities.

    Scary, but too many have dismissed him and his abilities to their detriment already.

    True. As previously observed by that analyst (whose name I forget), Trump's OODA loop - orient, observe, decide, act - is faster than the others: by the time the opposition works out how to cope with the shit he's flinging, he's flinging different shit. He is winning this and not that many people have noticed.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,115
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
    Overdue for wrongness since 1996 :p
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    MaxPB said:

    Wow, Trump on -5 favourability and Clinton on -14. The DNC leaks are really hurting IMO.

    "Lock her up". That's why.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Alistair said:

    Anyone seen the croastabs for the ORC/CNN poll yet?

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/07/25/trump.clinton.poll.pdf
    Big boost in Trump's favourability.

  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited July 2016
    OT I agree with this article. What we need is more Europe.

    http://reaction.life/what-should-the-eu-do-now/

    On topic: pissing off all the Sanders supporters can't be helping her. Crooked Hillary.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    The New King in the North.
    Remember, Winter is Coming.

    https://twitter.com/Fight4UK/status/757547609389162496
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,222
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
    Overdue for wrongness since 1996 :p
    Are there any "anti" bellweathers? As in, places that get it wrong a regular basis?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,757
    Thrak said:

    Indigo said:

    MaxPB said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Very slight lead before the DNC convention which will traditionally produce a counter-bounce the other way.

    I'm not sure that it will, there is a lot of bad blood between the Sanders mob and the DNC/Hillary. With the latesr revelations about the DNC giving Hillary an unfair advantage in the primaries it is going to be tough to unite the party. I also don't agree with Mike, I don't see how Kaine will help bring the Sanders supporters on board, he is even further to the right than Hillary and she is making a play for the centre rather than getting the left on board.
    Does the US have similar problems to us in terms of prising students and blue-collar workers off the sofa to vote ?
    From crosstabs it appara that Trump's support is more likely to be not registered to vote. He will need a big registration campaign to get the headline figures.
    Evidence? The only figures are the favourability ratings and Trump does better among registered voters (-5) than among all Americans (-9). All the other questions are for registered voters only.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,341
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
    Overdue for wrongness since 1996 :p
    Are there any "anti" bellweathers? As in, places that get it wrong a regular basis?
    You mean other than the BBC panels on election nights?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Mortimer said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
    Overdue for wrongness since 1996 :p
    Are there any "anti" bellweathers? As in, places that get it wrong a regular basis?
    You mean other than the BBC panels on election nights?
    :lol:
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,769
    edited July 2016
    The politics of this has a lot of elements without recent precedent, so it's quite hard to read. Giving up trying to read the politics and just looking at the polling, this is not a particularly tight race. It's a race where once candidate has a reasonably consistent lead, and the other one just got a convention bounce.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

    I think the upshot is that the markets know what they're doing: There's a strong favourite, but not so strong that an upset would be weird.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    USA's Nuneaton: IN, Vigo County.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346880/Bellwether-county-called-s-Trump-ve-wrong-TWICE-1888.html

    Wrong in 1908 and 1952 suggests to me that they're due to be wrong again.
    Overdue for wrongness since 1996 :p
    Are there any "anti" bellweathers? As in, places that get it wrong a regular basis?
    I refer the Hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago... :)
  • eekeek Posts: 31,305
    Blue_rog said:

    Live Q&A about the future of Labour on the Telegraph website now

    And? It's highly unlikely they are going to tell us anything we don't already know and in reality we are probably far more aware of the real issues (no section leader, MPs, members and voters or connected to the others) than anyone there is....
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025