politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn and the boundary review: not the disaster for LAB th
Comments
-
Arf - Well at last it’s more plausible than 'sorry officer, I have pneumonia’…Lucian_Fletcher said:Cracking story in our local paper. 'Speeding driver claimed he was testing accelerator'.
0 -
Yes, bitter Leavers sums them up rather well. I have quite a few Leaver friends on Facebook and judging by their demeanour you'd hardly guess they'd won. Sore winners!Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
0 -
As I said, it depends on your point of view. Seen through the prism of wanting to hold Sterling down his and other MPC members' pronouncements make a lot of sense. We know that the ECB may be gearing up a new round of stimulus and that the Fed are looking to delay their rate rise into the "at some point" range rather than before the end of the year as many previously thought. Holding down Sterling and making the economy less reliant on "the kindness of strangers" is going to be extremely important in the run up to actual Brexit. Using these two or three years to close the current account deficit and fix our balance of trade is worthwhile.Philip_Thompson said:
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
Again, there may be method to the madness.0 -
No: for a start, the comments are absurdly personalised - many Leavers seem to have an irrational hatred of him. Secondly, in what conceivable way is he 'doing a bad job'? How to deal with the expected economic shock of the referendum result was a difficult judgement; no one can be sure that in some alternative universe he could have done better, but so far the BoE's response seems to have helped avoid the worst immediate crisis of confidence. In particular, he steadied the ship and boosted confidence on the day after the referendum very successfully.Philip_Thompson said:
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
0 -
Election Data
Maybe the oddest question @PlatoSays
https://t.co/FSU1XlL2u3 …
Do you think Jesus would support or oppose
renationalising the railways?0 -
The Brexit parallels are strong with this one. Not least my own assessments - which were: initially an easy win for Remain, then "Leave looks like a good value loser" and finally "1.6 is an absolute steal; this is over".Richard_Nabavi said:Just two weeks ago, we were discussing whether Hillary might win a landslide; at that time the RCP 'no toss-ups' map had her winning by 362 to Trump's 176. Now it is 293 to 245.
But of course parallels are only parallels until they diverge. I think 3.0 looks about right for Trump but have backed him looking for 2.5 as pneumoniagate hits the polls.0 -
I gave him credit on the day after the referendum and I think most people here did. The Bank very sensibly held off on changing rates in July. He then for some reason reverted to Chicken Licken behaviour in August which was completely unnecessary. He should have stuck with the calm and reassuring behaviour which he was given credit for in the aftermath.Richard_Nabavi said:
No: for a start, the comments are absurdly personalised - many Leavers seem to have an irrational hatred of him. Secondly, in what conceivable way is he 'doing a bad job'? How to deal with the expected economic shock of the referendum result was a difficult judgement; no one can be sure that in some alternative universe he could have done better, but so far the BoE's response seems to have helped avoid the worst immediate crisis of confidence. In particular, he steadied the ship and boosted confidence on the day after the referendum very successfully.Philip_Thompson said:
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
0 -
Do you think JesusPlatoSaid said:Election Data
Maybe the oddest question @PlatoSays
https://t.co/FSU1XlL2u3 …
Do you think Jesus would support or oppose
renationalising the railways?
Was for public ownership
Like Jeremy is?0 -
It's currently Nate's tipping point: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorderPulpstar said:
If I recall correctly New Hampshire declares first.Richard_Nabavi said:Just two weeks ago, we were discussing whether Hillary might win a landslide; at that time the RCP 'no toss-ups' map had her winning by 362 to Trump's 176. Now it is 293 to 245.
I think we will "know" once it does.0 -
''There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor. ''
Its amazing how Remainers have totally ignored the far more measured comments of Mervyn King both before and after Brexit.
It is as if he doesn;t exist.
0 -
I wonder how much the advance was. She got an advance of 14 millions bucks for her last ghost written flop.williamglenn said:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html
Hillary's book sells less than 3000 copies in its first week.
Only one candidate is box office this year...0 -
I see that the House of Lords has looked at the question who should pull the Article 50 trigger:
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/september/brexit-government-must-consult-parliament-before-triggering-article-50-says-house-of-lords/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+out-law-NewsRoundUP+(OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP)
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."0 -
Well quite.Philip_Thompson said:
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
Mr Nabavi is projecting. Again.0 -
Montana @ 1-6 now makes appeal given the state of the race.0
-
John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found footage shows
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/john-mcdonnell-welcomed-the-financial-crash-and-called-himself-a/0 -
I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.0 -
If that's the same article I read late last night - Palin sold tens of thousands in her first week - more than Obama. If Hillary manages 7k in total, I'll be surprised - some of her press pool didn't know about it.williamglenn said:http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html
Hillary's book sells less than 3000 copies in its first week.
Only one candidate is box office this year...0 -
It's always very difficult to know how much weight to give to changes in polling. You need to keep a healthy scepticism about shifts in noisy data, without kidding yourself or letting yourself be selective in what facts you give weight to.Charles said:I'm coming to theview that too much focus on polling is unhelpful.
Fundamentals will put in the end
Fortunately in the case of US elections we have Nate Silver's models, which seem to be very well calibrated for interpreting polling data. Of course, you still have to form a judgement on how things are likely to change from here, and that's a subjective political judgement.
FWIW, my own view is that the shift to Trump is real, and that the betting markets (and more importantly, the financial markets) are underestimating the probability of a Trump win.0 -
It would set a precedent, but not a disturbing one. The whole purpose of an advisory referendum is surely to advise the Executive.AlastairMeeks said:"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
0 -
-
Reaffirms my opinion he is far more dangerous than jam filled Jezza.TheScreamingEagles said:John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found footage shows
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/john-mcdonnell-welcomed-the-financial-crash-and-called-himself-a/0 -
Isn't that more to with her meds have to vetted by the Secret Service, so have to obtained via certain sources.Charles said:I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
I remember George Bush Senior complaining when he was Veep, his staff wasn't allowed to buy him over the counter cough medicine.0 -
"It has triggered anger among Labour moderates locked in a civil war against the party’s left-wing who say this shows Mr McDonnell is willing to “sacrifice” British jobs to fit his ideology."TheScreamingEagles said:John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found footage shows
/
That should come as no surprise to anyone. - It's the very definition of Commies everywhere?0 -
No, I'm really not. And I can prove it simply enough; consider this comment:PlatoSaid said:
Well quite.Philip_Thompson said:
There's nothing bitter about thinking someone is doing a bad job. His projections have proven wrong time and again. He is just not very good at his job, especially compared to his predecessor.Richard_Nabavi said:I see that my observation that Leavers are strangely bitter despite having won is receiving ample support today in respect of Mark Carney.
Mr Nabavi is projecting. Again.
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "0 -
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
When did a failed Parliamentary Candidate for GE2015 become a 'top' anything..?PlatoSaid said:0 -
Roses Are Green,
Violets Are White,
The Boundaries Arn't Fair,
But Jezza Will Fight.0 -
"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?0 -
You would have thought a random box of Superdrug One-a-Day Hayfever Remedy would be safe. It's never done me any harm. To get the President, you would have to poison the whole supply.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't that more to with her meds have to vetted by the Secret Service, so have to obtained via certain sources.Charles said:I see from the latest releases that Clinton is taking Coumadin and Clarinex on a chronic basis and Levaquin for bacterial pneumonia.
My conclusion is that the government health plan she is on is absurdly generous: those drugs have all be generic for a decade and could be obtained at a fraction of the cost.
I remember George Bush Senior complaining when he was Veep, his staff wasn't allowed to buy him over the counter cough medicine.0 -
That's pretty much a pre-requisite for being a top Kipper.SimonStClare said:
When did a failed Parliamentary Candidate for GE2015 become a 'top' anything..?PlatoSaid said:0 -
A microcosm.PlatoSaid said:0 -
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.justin124 said:
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
LOL!Richard_Nabavi said:
That's pretty much a pre-requisite for being a top Kipper.SimonStClare said:
When did a failed Parliamentary Candidate for GE2015 become a 'top' anything..?PlatoSaid said:0 -
Considering Carswell is the only non-failed Parliamentary Candidate ...SimonStClare said:
When did a failed Parliamentary Candidate for GE2015 become a 'top' anything..?PlatoSaid said:0 -
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
Well, obviously not that he's an opportunist, since there's no conceivable opportunity he would have from making his comments. So I conclude that the obvious explanation is the right one: that there was an honest difference of opinion. I cite as evidence in support of this theory that most senior economists agreed with Carney. That doesn't of course mean that he was necessarily right, but it does mean that you don't have to look for base motives or impugn his integrity.taffys said:"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?0 -
The Apocalypse polling is hilariouswilliamglenn said:
Do you think JesusPlatoSaid said:Election Data
Maybe the oddest question @PlatoSays
https://t.co/FSU1XlL2u3 …
Do you think Jesus would support or oppose
renationalising the railways?
Was for public ownership
Like Jeremy is?
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/breakdown-of-yougov-poll-on-apocalyptic.html
I love this article so much
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/how-the-media-will-report-the-apocalypse?utm_term=.wjVNr4bknP#.esWaBDOKN50 -
Parliament is a legislature not an executive body. The people have told the Government how to act, there is no need for an intermediary to second-guess that instruction. Parliament will get involved later when specific Acts of Parliament need to be passed.AlastairMeeks said:I see that the House of Lords has looked at the question who should pull the Article 50 trigger:
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/september/brexit-government-must-consult-parliament-before-triggering-article-50-says-house-of-lords/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+out-law-NewsRoundUP+(OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP)
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
On another matter, next time we commit troops to a conflict I want to see May doing it explicitly as a Prerogative action, without asking Parliamentary "approval".0 -
Made me think of REM for some reason:williamglenn said:
Do you think JesusPlatoSaid said:Election Data
Maybe the oddest question @PlatoSays
https://t.co/FSU1XlL2u3 …
Do you think Jesus would support or oppose
renationalising the railways?
Was for public ownership
Like Jeremy is?
Do you beliee-eeve
They put Jeremy in power
Jeremy in power?
Thinking about that a bit more. Is it possible that Jeremy Corbyn is another Andy Kaufman joke persona?0 -
The man is a genius, but totally mad....watch his talk!!!
https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/13/comma-ai-will-ship-a-999-autonomous-driving-add-on-by-the-end-of-this-year/?ncid=rss0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
That's pretty much a pre-requisite for being a top Kipper.SimonStClare said:
When did a failed Parliamentary Candidate for GE2015 become a 'top' anything..?PlatoSaid said:
- You're a very bad man Mr Nabavi. 0 -
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
The government considered the proposed registration date but felt it would put the approval process at risk.justin124 said:
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
The MPC are right about business investment as well, that may take slightly longer to show up in the statistics. Consumers have shrugged off the vote as expected, but businesses seem more cautious IMO going forwards, investment for the next quarter hasn't changed but longer term plans are on hold for being recalibrated. I don't think that's a controversial statement either.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, obviously not that he's an opportunist, since there's no conceivable opportunity he would have from making his comments. So I conclude that the obvious explanation is the right one: that there was an honest difference of opinion. I cite as evidence in support of this theory that most senior economists agreed with Carney. That doesn't of course mean that he was necessarily right, but it does mean that you don't have to look for base motives or impugn his integrity.taffys said:"I want Carney gone - what a shifty and political opportunist. "
What does the gulf between his comments and Mervyn King's before Brexit suggest to you then?0 -
A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.0 -
Quite - the parallels are moving from nuance to stark.FrancisUrquhart said:
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
Amusing to see John Lilburne advocating the use of the Royal Prerogative!JohnLilburne said:
Parliament is a legislature not an executive body. The people have told the Government how to act, there is no need for an intermediary to second-guess that instruction. Parliament will get involved later when specific Acts of Parliament need to be passed.AlastairMeeks said:I see that the House of Lords has looked at the question who should pull the Article 50 trigger:
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2016/september/brexit-government-must-consult-parliament-before-triggering-article-50-says-house-of-lords/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+out-law-NewsRoundUP+(OUT-LAW+News-RoundUP)
It avoided the legal question and stuck to considering what was appropriate constitutionally. Its view?
"It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament."
On another matter, next time we commit troops to a conflict I want to see May doing it explicitly as a Prerogative action, without asking Parliamentary "approval".0 -
"Doesn't have a path" is a nonsense, as goes New Hampshire so goes the Nation I reckon. The popular vote winner will also very likely win the EC methinks.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.0 -
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw80 -
Clinton's average lead down to 1.8% with RCP:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html0 -
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
Alternatively, Trump pretty much just needs to win the popular vote (or even lose it narrowly). Harking back to 1992 is a red herring.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
Oh my. First NBC, then Colbert now NYT
The left-leaning New York Times editorial board is coming out against Hillary Clinton for her controversial comment in which she lumped half of Donald Trump supporters into what she called a "basket of deplorables."
The Times said the remark was an example of a candidate having "spent more and more time cocooned with their wealthiest supporters" and having made herself "vulnerable to a particular kind of influence. Not just the kind journalists are ever on the watch for — the classic quid pro quo — but a more subtle form, a cultural form that tends to be heard and not seen.
..."This is what happens when candidates spend so much time in what F. Scott Fitzgerald called 'the consoling proximity of millionaires.'"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2601782/0 -
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.FrancisUrquhart said:
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
Agree. Has anyone ever come up with any actual numbers to justify the "50 different elections" theory? Casually watching way the states swing it's not obvious that they're any more independent than British elections. Just apply a national swing.Pulpstar said:
"Doesn't have a path" is a nonsense, as goes New Hampshire so goes the Nation I reckon. The popular vote winner will also very likely win the EC methinks.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
It's was the raucous self-satisfied laughter from the fat cat diner donors following the remark that I found particularly telling and repulsive.MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.0 -
The CiC debate was not a proper one on one debate so I doubt had much impact. The first proper head to head debate is on 27th September in New Yorkweejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.Philip_Thompson said:
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.justin124 said:
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder0 -
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.weejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
Come now, Alistair was telling us that Trump was walking into a well laid trap by repeating the basket of deplorables claim. Surely he can't be wrong, I mean he is an expert on US politics and loves Clinton.PlatoSaid said:Oh my. First NBC, then Colbert now NYT
The left-leaning New York Times editorial board is coming out against Hillary Clinton for her controversial comment in which she lumped half of Donald Trump supporters into what she called a "basket of deplorables."
The Times said the remark was an example of a candidate having "spent more and more time cocooned with their wealthiest supporters" and having made herself "vulnerable to a particular kind of influence. Not just the kind journalists are ever on the watch for — the classic quid pro quo — but a more subtle form, a cultural form that tends to be heard and not seen.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2601782/0 -
A reduction of MPs that was manifesto policy. Be "brave" to override the law and manifesto policy and fairness and what's in the best interests of the party ...justin124 said:
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.Philip_Thompson said:
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.justin124 said:
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.0 -
Iowa i'd guess - the demographics are good for Trump there (low minority population, lots of w/c white voters).Philip_Thompson said:
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder0 -
OT Re Poles in the UK, I just found this article in a magazine published by the company I work for 70 years ago;
"NOVEMBER, 1946 PRICE ONE SHILLING
Fair Play
The National Union of Agricultural Workers is reported to have informed the T.U.C. that it cannot agree to the employment of demobilized Polish soldiers on the land. This bars the Poles from agriculture as well as the mining industry. To my mind, this is a stupid and short-sighted attitude for in both industries there is work for all. We were glad to have the Poles fighting for us in Tobruk, Italy and other campaigns, and now, having helped to win the war, they are being cold-shouldered. That is against our traditional British sense of fair play and decency. This treatment of the Poles is a sheer dog-in-the-manger attitude. The rights of British workers are not being jeopardized in any way by the employment of Poles-then what is it that the workers fear ? Are they afraid that the Poles will show them how to do a real day's work? The British labourer at his best can do more in the way of consistently good labour than any of the world's workers, including the Russian Stakhonovitch "shock" worker, yet nowadays he seems to be forfeiting the title of worker and even his right to work if the latter is now based upon the matter of earning his money. Workers are being better paid now than ever before, yet every industry reports that the output per man is getting less. A better standard of labour such as the employment of Poles may bring, will perhaps stimulate our own workers into becoming labourers worthy of their hire.
Incidentally, I note that a fair proportion of the Poles may be seen at Training Institutes and Night School classes, where they wrestle with the difficulty of understanding a lecture on some complex subject delivered in a foreign tongue. It is obvious that they intend to qualify in the respective professions which they have adopted, and, without exception, they prize the prospect of becoming British citizens. We have nothing to fear from this peaceful penetration for historical precedents show that similar "invasions," such as the Flemish weavers, brought new crafts and industries to the country. When we grumble on seeing a successful " foreigner " in our midst, it is well to remember that they probably started from scratch and worked hard to succeed. How would you like to start again, shall we say-in Turkey?
We should welcome the Poles, particularly in rural areas, and do our best to make them feel that they really are " at home " in the land of their adoption. This matter of what is their country reminds me of the story told of a Polish soldier who, on being repatriated from the U.K. to Poland, was telling his friend of all he had done. The friend suggested: " I suppose you've picked up some English too." "Aye," replied the Pole, "a wee bit." "
http://www.thecga.co.uk/pages/blog0 -
Minnesota is a bit of a random reach, isn't it?RobD said:
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw80 -
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.Tissue_Price said:
Minnesota is a bit of a random reach, isn't it?RobD said:
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw80 -
How do you price this, justin? Yes/No on revised boundaries being in place for the next GE, provided that GE is after 2018? [Bet void if early GE]justin124 said:
Quite a few Tory MPs appear to disagree - particularly with the reduction in MPs from 650 to 600.Philip_Thompson said:
Fat chance the Government should take a relaxed view, while there is an argument that the proposed new boundaries are not perfect there is not a single reason to prefer the old boundaries over the new ones. Not one reason.justin124 said:
But it is also a problem created by the Government by its failure to comply with the Electoral Commission's recommended Registration Date on which to base any new boundaries.Charles said:
The problem is that the boundaries aren't finalised now - it goes out for consultation and then get approved in autumn 2018.Lucian_Fletcher said:I think history will largely forget Gordon Brown.
As for the boundary review, I'm pretty sure that the Tories can ask the BC to consider a later set of electoral rolls (which seems the only real argument opponents have) and have another go. It's years until the next election and that can form part of the revisions. It won't make anything like the difference the ''gerrymander" idiots claim.
I also think they should have more leeway to keep towns together. If they can make provision for the islands, they can avoid boundaries being in the middle of villages or small towns.
If that became autumn 2019 (by pushing it back a year) it means that the Lords could block is on spurious grounds (which would be a constitutional outrage). Additionally, it would make it very hard to select candidates and get them campaigning in time for a May 2020 election.
In any event, the "missing 2 million" will (a) get to vote at the next election, so they aren't disenfranchised and (b) be included in the next boundary review in 2021.
It's an attempt to take a non-issue that sounds bad and to use it for partisan advantage
However, the Boundary Commission is required by law to submit its final recommendations by September 2018. A change in legislation would be required to prevent that or to alter the Commission's remit. More likely ,I suspect, is that the Government will take a relaxed view as to whether the proposals are actually approved.0 -
Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!0
-
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.0 -
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.AllyPally_Rob said:
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.weejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.0 -
RCP now has Trump ahead in Florida, Ohio and Iowa in a 4 way race and less than 1% behind in Nevada. However Hillary leads in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and Colorado by more than she does nationallyPhilip_Thompson said:
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder0 -
Iain Martin compared Kaine to Stan Laurel. I know little about him - Kaine that is.MaxPB said:
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.FrancisUrquhart said:
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
http://reaction.life/overheated-hillary-clinton-collapse-teriible-candidate/0 -
Iowa, Ohio, FloridaPhilip_Thompson said:
I see 538 is predicting an 81.5% chance Trump is going to win states Obama won last time. Any idea which states are most likely to flip?AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder0 -
Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".0
-
There's also the impact of those who were likely very soft Hillarys and then feel solidarity with Trumpers after the tribe insult.MonikerDiCanio said:
It's was the raucous self-satisfied laughter from the fat cat diner donors following the remark that I found particularly telling and repulsive.MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
Incredibly stupid by Hillary and her team.0 -
His first name is Tim. Disqualifying in anyone's book.PlatoSaid said:
Iain Martin compared Kaine to Stan Laurel. I know little about him - Kaine that is.MaxPB said:
Yes, she's played this very badly. I hope she claims ill health and Kaine gets the run, not just for my book either! Trump isn't going to be a good POTUS and Hillary seems incapable of putting him away, and would not be a good POTUS either. For the good of the nation she should give way. If she doesn't and Trump beats her she will have the worst legacy of any Democrat politician.FrancisUrquhart said:
Or "Little [New] Englanders"....MaxPB said:
That's what happens when you call white lower middle class people "deplorable". They may not have been the target but will feel that they are because they do want to reduce immigration and they don't want to see jobs go overseas to Mexico.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
Oh shit Hillary is in big trouble if he is this close in New England liberal Maine. Kudos to speedy I think you predicted this.
http://reaction.life/overheated-hillary-clinton-collapse-teriible-candidate/0 -
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.MaxPB said:
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.0 -
WireSpy
Exclusive: John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found - The Telegraph https://t.co/jGOr4fd7PI0 -
Rubio ?PlatoSaid said:
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.MaxPB said:
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.0 -
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.RobD said:
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.Tissue_Price said:
Minnesota is a bit of a random reach, isn't it?RobD said:
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw80 -
And the Pope's Catholic.PlatoSaid said:WireSpy
Exclusive: John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found - The Telegraph https://t.co/jGOr4fd7PI0 -
Talking of swing states, have we heard from JackW recently?0
-
The latest Scottish poll has May far ahead of Corbyn in Scotland and more popular than Sturgeon, let alone Cameron's past ratings. The Tories may well gain seats in Scotland in 2020, especially in the borders and Edinburgh even if they lose a handful in England. Major did that in 1992justin124 said:Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!
0 -
"Take the LA Times poll, add 6 points to Clinton, and you usually wind up with something close to the FiveThirtyEight or RealClearPolitics national polling average. "RobD said:
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.AllyPally_Rob said:
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.weejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/0 -
http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/09/14/cnn-florida-poll-donald-trump-edging-hillary-clinton-rubio-leads-murphy/Pulpstar said:
Rubio ?PlatoSaid said:
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.MaxPB said:
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.0 -
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.Tissue_Price said:
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.RobD said:
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.Tissue_Price said:
Minnesota is a bit of a random reach, isn't it?RobD said:
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw80 -
Not sure that detracts from my point?logical_song said:
"Take the LA Times poll, add 6 points to Clinton, and you usually wind up with something close to the FiveThirtyEight or RealClearPolitics national polling average. "RobD said:
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.AllyPally_Rob said:
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.weejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/0 -
"At one point Mr McDonnell, who was a backbencher at the time, says of the crisis: “I’ve been waiting for this for a generation!”MonikerDiCanio said:
And the Pope's Catholic.PlatoSaid said:WireSpy
Exclusive: John McDonnell welcomed the financial crash and called himself a Marxist, newly found - The Telegraph https://t.co/jGOr4fd7PI
The comments are documented in a YouTube video viewed less than 60 times which was posted on the website on 16 March, 2013."
Getting a lot now....0 -
Indeed, though all voted for Kerry as well as Obama so I expect Hillary to squeeze home even if Trump wins all the George W Bush 2004 states except Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia (which he may well do)Pulpstar said:Wisconsin, New Hampshire & Pennsylvania look to me to be the three potential "swing states".
0 -
Fair enough. And in any case, I had forgotten that the election is decided by each state delegation (i.e. all their Representatives) having one vote. That ought to make things much more secure for Trump.Philip_Thompson said:
No don't forget "mandatory reselection" is a feature of American politics and the House only has a two year term. Any (R) that peeled off would lose the next primary in 2018.Tissue_Price said:
The fact that it could come down to ME-2 is great. And I wonder which way the House would actually jump if it was a tie - there must be a few Republicans who might be peeled off.RobD said:
Oops! Quite right, not sure why I didn't see that. Replace with Nevada + NH I guess. NH much more challenging.Tissue_Price said:
Minnesota is a bit of a random reach, isn't it?RobD said:
Heh.Tissue_Price said:
Hell of a chat up line too.Pulpstar said:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus&stateorder
Nate's snake is an excellent infographic for spot checking state polls against.
I wonder if Trump could win with this:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/rDZw8
Peeling off a member of the electoral college would be far more viable (for either side).0 -
Lots of happy campers....
http://order-order.com/2016/09/15/labour-moderates-secretly-investigated-corbynistas/0 -
Wasn't meant to. It's clear that Trump has made some progress and now has a better than 1 in 3 chance.RobD said:
Not sure that detracts from my point?logical_song said:
"Take the LA Times poll, add 6 points to Clinton, and you usually wind up with something close to the FiveThirtyEight or RealClearPolitics national polling average. "RobD said:
The thing to do is to look at the trend. The LA times poll hasn't been Trump +6 all the time, nor is there any evidence it is getting more Trump-leaning as time goes on.AllyPally_Rob said:
LA times poll has been one of the most consistently trump leaning. Cherry picking polls isn't a good way to look at the race. It's close but like I say Hillary has multiple path's to victory, Trump has to roll a double 6 unless he makes significant inroads into the states the Dems have won every time since 1992.weejonnie said:
Latest LA Times: Trump +6 - this is the last one before the full effect of the CiC debate is felt (8 - 14 Sep) but includes 3 days before Clinton Collapse.AllyPally_Rob said:A bit of perspective on the presidential race. Trump certainly seems to have some momentum at the moment, but the electoral college is still a roadblock the size of a boulder in terms of his chance of getting to 270.
Hillary starts with 19 states that have gone Dem EVERY election since 1992. That's 242 electoral votes. She's only 28 away, which means she could lose every swing state and only win Florida, and she'd still be president.
Trump needs to break that wall, and do what McCain and Romney tried to do but fail, and bring Pennsylvania into play. Clinton has been consistently ahead here (she's up 6 according to RCP). He's very unlikely to flip this state (Bush Snr was the last GOP candidate to do it), and with Virginia and Colorado looking unlikely too he simply doesn't have a path.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/0 -
Paging @CromwellPlatoSaid said:
http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2016/09/14/cnn-florida-poll-donald-trump-edging-hillary-clinton-rubio-leads-murphy/Pulpstar said:
Rubio ?PlatoSaid said:
Rubio and Trump polling strongly from stuff I saw last night.MaxPB said:
Farmers in Texas use a lot of (illegal) migrant labour, and there are also a lot of naturalised US Latino citizens from past amnesties in Texas. Overall it won't outweigh the massive GOP vote though, Texas is going to vote for Trump.nunu said:http://www.270towin.com/news/2016/09/14/poll-trump-within-3-in-maine-leads-by-10-in-2nd-congressional-district_371.html#.V9qMi6nTXqA
This showed me how little I know about U.S politics, I thought red Texas would be on favour of Trumps unworkable policies but not so.
Rubio rising 0 -
Major gained 1 seat in 1992 - Aberdeen South - and regained a seat lost to the Libdems at a by election in 1991. Whilst I agree that the Tories could pick up seats from SNP I am sure they are nowhere near 35% - or even 25%. Equally Labour is not on 11%.HYUFD said:
The latest Scottish poll has May far ahead of Corbyn in Scotland and more popular than Sturgeon, let alone Cameron's past ratings. The Tories may well gain seats in Scotland in 2020, especially in the borders and Edinburgh even if they lose a handful in England. Major did that in 1992justin124 said:Looking at Mori tables , it seems that Tory lead in England is 5% - compared with 9.5% in May 2015. They lead Labour by an unlikely 25% in Scotland!
On Mori's England figures Labour would gain 18 Tory seats.0 -
I just read through Kaine's political positions on Wiki, seems like a pretty moderate type who would have wide appeal. If he became POTUS I would be quite pleased. Much better than Clinton or Trump.0
