politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit’s victory was miniscule and a swing of just 1.85% would

Donald Crapo-ed on again.

https://twitter.com/MikeCrapo/status/784773920192798720

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

HurstLlama said:

another_richard said:

FPT

Sean_F said:

Actually, I think it 's driven by the reason that Robert Smithson gave - a big current account deficit. Which would be case inside or outside the EU. Brexit simply brought it to a head.

Indeed.

And its better that we deal with the fundamental imbalances with the UK economy now that to continue to pretend that they don't exist.

Anyone who wants a higher sterling exchange rate should look to make their own contribution to making that happen by:

1) Creating more wealth
2) Living within their means
3) Increasing their savings ratio

The worrying thing to me is that HMG still seem to be ignoring that current account deficit. There seems to be no acknowledgement that it exists, let alone a plan to deal with it.

We live in a "because I'm worth it" society.

And governments have encouraged it to win popularity.

Consequences now include a trillion pound increase in government debt and a current account deficit of nearly £300bn over the last three years:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/timeseries/hbop/pnbp

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

One thing that should be pointed out these days Silver doesn't actually do much analysis on a day to day, and 538 big money comes from sports stuff. Not to say "he" (the 538 team) is going to get this wrong, but he no longer personally spend his life dedicated to modelling politics and it is a small part of his teams output.

Given this, it doesn't surprise me he got 2 x UK GE wrong, Brexit wrong and Trump nomination wrong...and going forward I would think it is more and more likely he is wrong on things.

One of the most useful thing about 538 is the ratings of the various pollsters, as in the US they go from fairly good to absolute joke.

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Trump has lost.

Not with a month still to go

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

tyson said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I get all the liberal huffing about Trump - but they've been doing 1000 variations of it for months.

Professionally speaking, I think they're all wrong. I worked in sales offices in the late 90s where male colleagues talked like this and down the pub, and sports clubs.

It's Sex in the City for women who do the same, and pretend not to when not together and tiddled.

The whole liberal tutting puritanism isn't convincing me one iota. If people like me aren't thinking WTF HOW AWFUL - this is going to result in more shy Trumpers in the polls.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Vulgar folk use vulgar bragging hyperbole - shocker.

Why am I not remotely surprised that you do not find Trump's behaviour awful?

Dear oh dear Plato and DiCanio

Italians laugh at the hypocritical prudishness of the yank media, luckily the Americans now do likewise. Ask your Tuscan neighbours what they think of Trump's decade old banter.

I did some modelling , remain was almost certain 1 month out by the polls

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

There just aren't enough of them.

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Pile your money on Trump then.

Or are you expecting for it to go longer?

FTPT

HYUFD said:

The polling is clear
https://twitter.com/wallace_anna/status/772894573693640704

I've actually just had a look at the polling. ( http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-New-Blueprint-Full-data-tables-Sept-2016.pdf ) It's an Ashcroft special, on a scale of 0-10 (!) they had to rate Controlling immigration vs Access to the free market with 10 being "Being able to control immigration at all costs" and 0 being "Securing Access to the EU single market"

To get the figures shown in the tweet he's group 6-10 as Immigration and 0-4 as Single Market.

They also provide breakdowns of 8-10, 4-7, 0-3 which makes only UKIP and Cons prioritise Immigration over Single market. That's the opposite of clear.

The tweeted 6-10/0-4 bucketing is also completely at odds with the earlier questions which asked people to rate importance of various post Brexit issues. Only 18% rated Controlling immigration as the top issue.

MonikerDiCanio said:

tyson said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I get all the liberal huffing about Trump - but they've been doing 1000 variations of it for months.

Professionally speaking, I think they're all wrong. I worked in sales offices in the late 90s where male colleagues talked like this and down the pub, and sports clubs.

It's Sex in the City for women who do the same, and pretend not to when not together and tiddled.

The whole liberal tutting puritanism isn't convincing me one iota. If people like me aren't thinking WTF HOW AWFUL - this is going to result in more shy Trumpers in the polls.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Vulgar folk use vulgar bragging hyperbole - shocker.

Why am I not remotely surprised that you do not find Trump's behaviour awful?

Dear oh dear Plato and DiCanio

Italians laugh at the hypocritical prudishness of the yank media, luckily the Americans now do likewise. Ask your Tuscan neighbours what they think of Trump's decade old banter.

I don't think the Italians are the best guide on this, after all they repeatedly voted for Berlusconi, a sleazebag of utterly grotesque proportions.

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Genuine question. Have you seen the demographic breakdown of Trump voters during the primary season? They were indistinguishable from normal Republican primary voters, maybe skewing a little richer than average.

I would think that the typical primary voter is not representative. They're by definition more political engaged than average. If Trump wins the popular vote it will be thanks to people who have never voted in a primary in their lives.

Pulpstar said:

I did some modelling ,

Can we see the photos? For those pbCOMers who don't know young Pulps is quite a dashing looking chap....

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I get all the liberal huffing about Trump - but they've been doing 1000 variations of it for months.

Professionally speaking, I think they're all wrong. I worked in sales offices in the late 90s where male colleagues talked like this and down the pub, and sports clubs.

It's Sex in the City for women who do the same, and pretend not to when not together and tiddled.

The whole liberal tutting puritanism isn't convincing me one iota. If people like me aren't thinking WTF HOW AWFUL - this is going to result in more shy Trumpers in the polls.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Vulgar folk use vulgar bragging hyperbole - shocker.

I really couldn't give a stuff about the US elections, both candidates seem absolutely ghastly to me and I cannot understand how a great nation could end up with those two competing for the top job. My issue here is the idea that only men use coarse, and worse speech, when together.

Some years ago I was on a course in London and there were five of us (four ladies, each from a different firm, and me) staying at the same hotel. Naturally in the evening we went out for a curry and drinkies. It became clear that the ladies were inhibited by a man amongst them but rather than telling me to piss off they made the remarkable, for me, decision to make me an honorary girlie for the evening. They then felt free to speak frankly amongst themselves, to say the things they wanted to say.

At that point I was in my late forties, ex-army, married, been around the block a few times and thought I understood the world reasonably well. To say I was shocked would be a massive understatement. The topics those four reasonably young, professional, ladies talked about, and the clinical detail they went into left me speechless. I had not, and still haven't heard the equivalent in any male gathering - not at a rugby club dinner, in an army barracks, or a boys night out in a Macao brothel, nowhere.

Ladies have their own style with such matters and it certainly isn't worse than men's.

williamglenn said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Genuine question. Have you seen the demographic breakdown of Trump voters during the primary season? They were indistinguishable from normal Republican primary voters, maybe skewing a little richer than average.

I would think that the typical primary voter is not representative. They're by definition more political engaged than average. If Trump wins the popular vote it will be thanks to people who have never voted in a primary in their lives.

The narrative of the angry white non-college Trumper started in the Primaries - despite the demographic evidence to the contrary.

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Genuine question. Have you seen the demographic breakdown of Trump voters during the primary season? They were indistinguishable from normal Republican primary voters, maybe skewing a little richer than average.

I would think that the typical primary voter is not representative. They're by definition more political engaged than average. If Trump wins the popular vote it will be thanks to people who have never voted in a primary in their lives.

The narrative of the angry white non-college Trumper started in the Primaries - despite the demographic evidence to the contrary.

The evidence doesn't necessarily contradict the narrative. Angry white non-college Trumpers could have been enthused but not active voters during the primaries. In other words, Trump's performance in the primaries could have underestimated his true level of support.

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

If there's a referendum to rejoin the EU in 2035 you can ask for a hurdle of at least 55%.

williamglenn said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Genuine question. Have you seen the demographic breakdown of Trump voters during the primary season? They were indistinguishable from normal Republican primary voters, maybe skewing a little richer than average.

I would think that the typical primary voter is not representative. They're by definition more political engaged than average. If Trump wins the popular vote it will be thanks to people who have never voted in a primary in their lives.

The narrative of the angry white non-college Trumper started in the Primaries - despite the demographic evidence to the contrary.

The evidence doesn't necessarily contradict the narrative. Angry white non-college Trumpers could have been enthused but not active voters during the primaries. In other words, Trump's performance in the primaries could have underestimated his true level of support.

No, we were told it was they who were voting for Trump, diving the surge in voting numbers. It is a tenacious myth that has survived facts.

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Trump has lost.

Not yet. Clinton has gone all in with a strong hand, but Trump still has cards to play.

One of those cards being how Hillary was mad at the women who tried to ruin her marriage? Trump is the joker in the deck.

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

If there's a referendum to rejoin the EU in 2035 you can ask for a hurdle of at least 55%.

There will not be one..we would not be allowed back.

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Oh FFS, not this Brexit/Trump nonsense still. WWC types are not the swing voters in most of the states that matter.

Y0kel said:

The referendum result was clear. There were more votes for leave than remain.

Thats clear.

You don't see any distinction between a 99-1 and 51-49 result?

PlatoSaid said:

Trump tells WSJ there's "zero chance" he'll quit and he's getting "unbelievable" support.

Any support for him at this stage certainly seems pretty unbelievable.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Square pegs, round holes....

https://twitter.com/England/status/784765622043443200

Does anyone really give a toss about the England football team anymore ?

tyson said:

Pulpstar said:

I did some modelling ,

Can we see the photos? For those pbCOMers who don't know young Pulps is quite a dashing looking chap....

Lol probability models ..
Prefer to be on the other end of the camera for that sort of thing. Hopefully snap some turtles tomorrow...

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

Parliament could also have voted to make the result binding, but they didn't, and it isn't.

Pulpstar said:

1.1101... Probably parity at the airports now.

Daily record found airports with less than a euro to the pound

If Trump fights the election and loses he will also lose a fortune. If he pulls out now he will make a mint. Discuss.

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

Parliament could also have voted to make the result binding, but they didn't, and it isn't.

The government effectively made it binding with what they said in that official pamphlet.

If we're going by what the pamphlet said then people voted against:

• we will not join the euro
• we will keep our own border controls
• the UK will not be part of further European political integration
• there will be tough new restrictions on accessto our welfare system for new EU migrants

FrancisUrquhart said:

Square pegs, round holes....

https://twitter.com/England/status/784765622043443200

I am getting so old. I have not heard of two of those starters. Who are Bertrand and Lindgard?

SouthamObserver said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Square pegs, round holes....

https://twitter.com/England/status/784765622043443200

I am getting so old. I have not heard of two of those starters. Who are Bertrand and Lindgard?

Bertrand (left back for Southampton) has played a number of times for England. Lindgard is Man Utd midfielder of which a lot was hoped early on, but has struggled for consistency, is making his debut.

nunu said:

Alistair said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

LA Times polling is either going to go down as a total laughing stock just as Angus Reid or Ashcroft or going to show all the rest up. I am going to go with the former rather than the later.

The main non-demographic weighting the LA Times poll uses is recalled 2012 presidential vote.

America has the habit of too many people 'remembering' voting for the winner. So the poll is down weighting Democratic voters too heavily.

If voters are saying they voted for Obama when they voted for Romney and now saying they will vote for Trump, shouldn't that downweighting of people who are misremembering voting for Obama make for a more accurate poll? Elaborate please.

Imagine the hypothetical

Of 100 people:
51 people voted for Obama
49 people voted for Romney

However when asked 4 years later

56 people say they voted for Obama
44 People say they voted for Romney

5 Romney voters suffered false recollection.

So those 56 people will be mapped to 51 and those 44 will be mapped to 49

If those 100 people then retain the same vote pattern from 2012 to now then when asked

51 People say they will vote for Hilary
49 people say they will vote Trump

That 51 gets weighted to 46.44
The 49 gets weighted to 54.56

A 2 point Dem leads turns into an 8 point Republican lead.

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

Parliament could also have voted to make the result binding, but they didn't, and it isn't.

The government effectively made it binding with what they said in that official pamphlet.

If we're going by what the pamphlet said then people voted against:

• we will not join the euro
• we will keep our own border controls
• the UK will not be part of further European political integration
• there will be tough new restrictions on accessto our welfare system for new EU migrants

Absurd. I take it we also voted against the government implementing the decision of the people then?

@matt_itvnews: Former GOP candidate @CarlyFiorina "Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside and for the RNC to replace him with Gov. Mike Pence"

Theuniondivvie said:

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

It was actually an amendment that at least 40% of the Scottish electorate (based on out of date registers) should vote for devolution for it to proceed.
Incidentally the '79 Devo vote was 51.62% Yes, 48.38% No, v. close to the Brexit vote.

Thanks for that, Mr. Divvie. I was sure my memory wasn't too far adrift and that there was some additional clause above a straight majority built into the legislation. There was quite a lot of fuss about it at the time, if I recall.

I wonder why in all subsequent referendums no such clause has been added. I suspect that it is because the establishment were confident of getting their way.

Tru dat.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/359803783724793857

Scott_P said:

@matt_itvnews: Former GOP candidate @CarlyFiorina "Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside and for the RNC to replace him with Gov. Mike Pence"

Sadly I think it's too late - but any Republican win would be better than Hilary. She will be no friend of Britain I suspect, just as Obama hasn't been. We cdould do with a friendly Whitehouse during the Brexit process, if for nothing more than a feeling of confidence that it might exude.

TonyE said:

Scott_P said:

@matt_itvnews: Former GOP candidate @CarlyFiorina "Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside and for the RNC to replace him with Gov. Mike Pence"

Sadly I think it's too late - but any Republican win would be better than Hilary. She will be no friend of Britain I suspect, just as Obama hasn't been. We cdould do with a friendly Whitehouse during the Brexit process, if for nothing more than a feeling of confidence that it might exude.

Last time there was a Republican in the White House we got dragged into a pointless war.

HurstLlama said:

Theuniondivvie said:

HurstLlama said:

IanB2 said:

david_kendrick1 said:

Remain supporters still claiming it was close?

Granted, it was a shock win. It went against every political party in the UK (except for UKIP and the DUP), against the main broadcaster, against the civil service, and against the entire metropolitan elite. The shock tactics of the losing side were unbelievable--fortunately they weren't believed.

Remain even had the 'good fortune' to be on the right end of the only black swan event of the campaign--the assassination of Jo Cox. (For an arithmetic assessment of the significance of the that, see Anthony Wells. He reckons the margin went from down from approx 12 to about 4%).

Without the emphatic support of the leading politian of his age, Cameron, the margin would have been enormous.

Sure, the end result was mathematically close. But to confuse that with enthusiasm for the EU being on a knife-edge in the UK is disingenuous.

There should have been a hurdle of at least 55% for something that risks significantly trashing our future.

Well, Parliament could have voted for that, if they wanted to. They didn't. They did, if memory serves, on the initial Scottish devolution vote back in the seventies but not any subsequent referendum. Blame Parliament. (perhaps Cameron and co thought they could not lose).

It was actually an amendment that at least 40% of the Scottish electorate (based on out of date registers) should vote for devolution for it to proceed.
Incidentally the '79 Devo vote was 51.62% Yes, 48.38% No, v. close to the Brexit vote.

Thanks for that, Mr. Divvie. I was sure my memory wasn't too far adrift and that there was some additional clause above a straight majority built into the legislation. There was quite a lot of fuss about it at the time, if I recall.

I wonder why in all subsequent referendums no such clause has been added. I suspect that it is because the establishment were confident of getting their way.

It was quite controversial at the time and there's a strong case to be made that it was just another factor (of several) that stored up trouble for the future.

Applied to the Brexit vote it would have course meant Remain/the status quo would have won,
not controversial in the slightest!

not_on_fire said:

TonyE said:

Scott_P said:

@matt_itvnews: Former GOP candidate @CarlyFiorina "Today I ask Donald Trump to step aside and for the RNC to replace him with Gov. Mike Pence"

Sadly I think it's too late - but any Republican win would be better than Hilary. She will be no friend of Britain I suspect, just as Obama hasn't been. We cdould do with a friendly Whitehouse during the Brexit process, if for nothing more than a feeling of confidence that it might exude.

Last time there was a Republican in the White House we got dragged into a pointless war.

Labour's Blair wasn't dragged into the Iraq disaster, he strenuously lobbied for it.

felix said:

TonyE said:

felix said:

tyson said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I get all the liberal huffing about Trump - but they've been doing 1000 variations of it for months.

Professionally speaking, I think they're all wrong. I worked in sales offices in the late 90s where male colleagues talked like this and down the pub, and sports clubs.

It's Sex in the City for women who do the same, and pretend not to when not together and tiddled.

The whole liberal tutting puritanism isn't convincing me one iota. If people like me aren't thinking WTF HOW AWFUL - this is going to result in more shy Trumpers in the polls.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Vulgar folk use vulgar bragging hyperbole - shocker.

Why am I not remotely surprised that you do not find Trump's behaviour awful?

Dear oh dear Plato and DiCanio

Plato used to be a 'Blair babe' - says it all really.

Is Trump a bit grubby and disgusting? Maybe. But was Clinton? Nixon wasn't exactly Mr Clean, Johnson was right on the edge of legality, and don't start me on Kennedy. Being a 'good guy' is no guarantee of being a good president. Ford and Carter were absolutely stand up fellas. Not great presidents.

The choice is not great but that's no reason to vote for Trump.

No, but if you could, would you vote for Clinton either? I don't think I could. She's totally corrupt, as is the Clinton foundation, and I'm not sure she hasn't had a lot of help with the FBI.
Has to be the same law for the little people as the politicians.

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Oh FFS, not this Brexit/Trump nonsense still. WWC types are not the swing voters in most of the states that matter.

Y0kel said:

The referendum result was clear. There were more votes for leave than remain.

Thats clear.

You don't see any distinction between a 99-1 and 51-49 result?

In Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Michigan wwc voters are the swing voters actually and just with Leave it is white working and lower middle-class non college graduates who are Trump's strongest supporters

Zero chance I’ll quit. The support I'm getting is unbelievable."

He's at the denial stage. I think there's a decent probability Donald Trump will quit.

I also don't think his heart is in the campaign.

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

HYUFD said:

not_on_fire said:

PlatoSaid said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

LA Times has Trump 3 % up on Mrs Clinton. I'd guess that there's a hefty shy Trump element. Hillary's in serious trouble.

I'm not sure what the polls tell us now about Hillary anymore. The MSM war on Trump is eclipsing Brexit snobbery. And it's not landing much, as those who already think they're biased just see more evidence of it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, 538 (no doubt with biased mathematics) is now giving Clinton an 82% chance of winning, with Arizona about to flip. That would be the icing on the cake.

That would be the same Nate Silver who said Remain would win EU ref. At the moment Clinton probably has the edge but there is still a month of the campaign to go

Silver doesn't know much about UK elections, but in the last 2 presidential elections he has predicted 99 out of 100 state results correctly. I have more faith in his model to predict this election than what's appearing on Plato's Twitter timeline.

Silver also got the last midterms wrong and Trump's supporters bear more resemblance to the voters who won it for Brexit than those who voted for McCain and Romney

Genuine question. Have you seen the demographic breakdown of Trump voters during the primary season? They were indistinguishable from normal Republican primary voters, maybe skewing a little richer than average.

Wrong, Trump voters were poorer and less educated than Jeb Bush, Rubio and Kasich voters

Alistair said:

FTPT

HYUFD said:

The polling is clear
https://twitter.com/wallace_anna/status/772894573693640704

I've actually just had a look at the polling. ( http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-New-Blueprint-Full-data-tables-Sept-2016.pdf ) It's an Ashcroft special, on a scale of 0-10 (!) they had to rate Controlling immigration vs Access to the free market with 10 being "Being able to control immigration at all costs" and 0 being "Securing Access to the EU single market"

To get the figures shown in the tweet he's group 6-10 as Immigration and 0-4 as Single Market.

They also provide breakdowns of 8-10, 4-7, 0-3 which makes only UKIP and Cons prioritise Immigration over Single market. That's the opposite of clear.

The tweeted 6-10/0-4 bucketing is also completely at odds with the earlier questions which asked people to rate importance of various post Brexit issues. Only 18% rated Controlling immigration as the top issue.

Given Cons and UKIP voters combined are now more than other voters combined even on that basis controlling immigration comes above full single market access

The whole premise of the article is a load of hystericalist oldthinker deviationism. A vote of 52% to 48% is an overwhelming and decisive mandate for the people of this country to grasp the nettle by the horns and become a Democratic Democracy once again. The Remoaning Remainiac Oldthinkers should learn to recognise that their obscurantist reactionary pro-oblivion anti-democracy fantasies are not worth the candle they're written on.