politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumper
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumpers
Also Trump didn't over-perform his polls in the primary. If anything the opposite happened. pic.twitter.com/UFVO6BvRLe
Comments
-
First.0
-
ED THROUGH!!0
-
Obviously I should have posted a trigger warning for Trump fans.0
-
Trumping in public is always a source of shame, surely.0
-
0
-
Shy Trumpers almost certainly exist, but no way can there be enough of them to overturn the kind of deficits he has in the polls.0
-
Yes0
-
Are Shy Trumpers the same as Phantom Raspberry Blowers?0
-
At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.0 -
Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-14767020030 -
The answer is blowing in the wind...0
-
I'm not sure that the dynamics of a primary are the same as the the general though.
The primaries were about blowing a raspberry at the establishment - but in the polling booth many would have had doubts. Socially it was a "safe" thing to do to support Trump: and arguably harder to justify supporting Bush for example.
With the media coverage of Trump's issues over the last weeks and months I can see much more social shame about being a backer. What would be interesting is analysis of the last few weeks - where has the Trump support been going: to Hillary, to undecided or to non-voting? The answer would be very instructive. I suspect it will be going to undecided - and, if so, it (or a proportion) may come back on the day.0 -
A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.
Worth considering in state betting too.0 -
Hes 5-1. Brexit was 6-1 on referendum day.ToryJim said:Shy Trumpers almost certainly exist, but no way can there be enough of them to overturn the kind of deficits he has in the polls.
I dont think the bookies are yet convinced its all over.
I certainly want more than 5-1 though before I take a punt.0 -
Liquid football.Scrapheap_as_was said:now this is a goal...
https://twitter.com/BilouFCB/status/7902420094832435200 -
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.0 -
Trump is doing 1% better than Romney in the northeast but Clinton is doing 9% better than Obama in the south.AlastairMeeks said:A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.
Worth considering in state betting too.0 -
FPT:
All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...tyson said:Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.
Is the whole world gripped by a cold?
0 -
Fighting fit here....Mortimer said:FPT:
All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...tyson said:Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.
Is the whole world gripped by a cold?0 -
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
I've got a bit of a sniffle but it is not second thoughts, honest.Mortimer said:FPT:
All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...tyson said:Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.
Is the whole world gripped by a cold?0 -
Had my annual flu jab and feeling fine.MarqueeMark said:
Fighting fit here....Mortimer said:FPT:
All the Leavers I know are tickety-boo...tyson said:Slightly off thread...but this is a Sunday afternoon and all.....how many posters here are currently nursing colds? I've got terrible man flu, diabolical worse than anyone else I'm sure...but everyone else I know, my wife, her folks, my friends I have spoken to today, the barman...even my dog is sneezing.
Is the whole world gripped by a cold?
0 -
-
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/80135/emily-thornberry-not-acceptable-keep-paying-eu
Vs
Hilary Benn, Ms Thornberry’s predecessor in the Shadow Cabinet post and now the chairman of the Brexit Committee, stressed the importance of a transitional deal when he spoke to the Andrew Marr Show ea0 -
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.0 -
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
Some of his agenda is not sane.SeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
But I agree this is a really disappointing POTUS. Both of the candidates are crap, incoherent and will almost certainly be poor Presidents. Hilary, probably slightly less so but we will have 4 years of Special Prosecutors, Congressional Inquiries, lying and equivocation. Not really what the country needs and not particularly helpful to us.0 -
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders raceMalmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strengthSeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.0 -
Bizarre moment - Coronation Street on the TV sets in the gym at my hotel in Vancouver, complete with sub-titles.0
-
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
I think he wants to negotiate with Russia - whilst Clinton wants to tell them the USA nuclear response time. Slight difference.HYUFD said:
We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strengthSeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
(USA citizens have always been relatively insular)0 -
Turnout could be crucial - whether real or virtual.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Would he have been able to get away with more if he delivered his lines Brian Blessed style?SeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
'NASTY WOMAN!'0 -
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
FPT
AlistairAlistair Posts: 5,568
7:39PM
Moses_ said:
» show previous quotes
Wait one. That's not a win then.
If it was 52.9% that would be considered a very narrow win and not representative because half have voted elsewhere. Well that's the strange logic of Remainers on PB .
(Yes I know it's not a half but doesn't stop that "half quote" being used over and over by Remainers)
------------------
Trump won't be getting 47% of vote.
------------------
Totally irrelevant.
Everyone else will of course so we have a glorious situation where in the UK 52.9% is regarded a narrow win and not the will of the people but in USA 53% ( according to your call) is a resounding win and certainly the will of the people.
FFS and you wonder why Remainers are not taken seriously.0 -
What odds do you want on Turnout below 50%?DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
Trump has a mountain to climb!initforthemoney said:
Would he have been able to get away with more if he delivered his lines Brian Blessed style?SeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
'NASTY WOMAN!'
Lucky Fellow!0 -
As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussennunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
Ford v Carter is surely the comparator (if there is one), and that garnered 53.6%.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.SeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.0 -
Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sandersweejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water0 -
That's some seriously unskewed polls.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
It is hard to really be charming while advocating mass deportations and a trade war, you need bombast and anger if that is the message you are communicatingSeanT said:
I wasn't comparing him to Reagan in terms of POLICIES, just saying a politician with Reagan's charm could sell 80% of Trump's manifesto, and win. And win very easily - against Hillary.HYUFD said:
We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strengthSeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.0 -
With all six grey states blue, t's not actually a million miles off Trump's route to the White House, but it's 2-3 points outside current polling.Alistair said:
That's some seriously unskewed polls.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
I wouldn't go that far but there is little secret who Putin who is rooting forweejonnie said:
I think he wants to negotiate with Russia - whilst Clinton wants to tell them the USA nuclear response time. Slight difference.HYUFD said:
We shall see but Trump's platform includes deporting illegals, building a wall with Mexico, starting a trade war with China and imposing tariffs on their imports, banning all Muslim immigration (OK maybe he has now dropped that one), tearing up the TPP and maybe withdrawing from NAFTA. Not even Reagan went that far. Unlike Reagan he also seems to want to let Russia do what it likes, whereas Reagan preferred negotiation through strengthSeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
(USA citizens have always been relatively insular)0 -
yeah absolutely. Most polls have republicans losing this demo, esp the women. And why would they vote for the moronic Johnson???nunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct210 -
The only way you can get Trump to a majority is by applying those corrections where they're favourable to him, and ignoring them where they're unfavourable. For example, that 8.5-point deficit in Iowa means that with the correction applied, Clinton would win it by a mile, even though it's close without the correction.HYUFD said:Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-14767020030 -
0
-
Who are Trump's Blue Collar base? Trump primary voters were not Blue Collar workersHYUFD said:
Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/0 -
Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.DavidL said:
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Alastair yhmAlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
On topic: incidentally, as someone who stayed up for most of the Republican primaries - and pored over the rest - Trump outperformed the polls when it mattered most. Florida got rid of Rubio, Indiana doomed Cruz, Pennsylvania created the rust-belt message.0
-
you know college educated white women are one of the most important demographics in US elections right? You have no chance without them.HYUFD said:
Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sandersweejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
Also, liberals, the young, hispanics and AA's will def vote to keep Trump out of the white house0 -
Large proportion of hotel guests in Vancouver are Chinese. I wonder what the Manchurians would make of Mancunian...Goodness knows I struggle.SouthamObserver said:Bizarre moment - Coronation Street on the TV sets in the gym at my hotel in Vancouver, complete with sub-titles.
0 -
Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.DavidL said:
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Clinton won by 4 million votes. Wasnt particularly closeHYUFD said:
The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders raceMalmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
Nah, not playing. Too hard to read from this side of the pond. 54.9% last time. That would be a very big drop.Alistair said:
What odds do you want on Turnout below 50%?DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Looking at the Rassmusen page giving the edited highlights of the demographics of their latest poll they make the extraordinary claim that Mitt Romney earned 17% of the black vote in 2012?
This goes against everything I've read. Does anyone have any source to this fantastical claim?0 -
The wall stuff is a key part of Trump's idiocy, yes. But a populist of the right could appeal to the base in many other ways.HYUFD said:
The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders raceMalmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
Trump vs Bernie would be interesting to imagine - I keep thinking that Trump would fail to lay a glove on Bernie.0 -
It's daft to show states like Florida and North Carolina, where Clinton has a lead in the polls, as definite red states, not even toss-ups.TheWhiteRabbit said:
With all six grey states blue, t's not actually a million miles off Trump's route to the White House, but it's 2-3 points outside current polling.Alistair said:
That's some seriously unskewed polls.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
Perhaps. I was slightly surprised by the number of Trump signs/stickers in, of all places, Cape Cod last week. Worth remembering that Mass. has a Republican governor - generalisations are just that.AlastairMeeks said:A handy guide to where Trump's mediocre ground game outweighed shy Trumpers and vice versa. New England is generally a place where backing Donald Trump is social death. The Bible Belt, not so much.
Worth considering in state betting too.0 -
On the plus car it is someone other than Lewis's car that has caught fire to help Nico this time.
So far.0 -
In bad taste i know but has anyone seen odds/a market in Clinton not lasting the full term due to dementia/ill health/no 24 bus etc. Assuming she wins.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
0 -
Yeah, whilst it's undoubtedly true that the role of POTUS is important on a global scale, I do find it hard to understand why some PBers are so enthusiastic about either of the candidates.DavidL said:
Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.DavidL said:
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.HYUFD said:
As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussennunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
2) there are more Dems
3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.
4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.0 -
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.0 -
Neither Ford nor Carter were as loathed as Trump and Hillary are, the nearest comparison is 1968 albeit with Humphrey not running leaving the race as Nixon v WallaceTheWhiteRabbit said:
Ford v Carter is surely the comparator (if there is one), and that garnered 53.6%.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
Hmmm your right I think, she's the luckiest person in the world.SeanT said:
She's facing the worst Republican candidate I can remember in my lifetime. No, we're not underestimating her. She's terrible, he's even worse, and by a distance.nunu said:
He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.SeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.0 -
Of course it requires everything to go right for him but Trump has a 3.7% lead in Iowa according to RCPChris said:
The only way you can get Trump to a majority is by applying those corrections where they're favourable to him, and ignoring them where they're unfavourable. For example, that 8.5-point deficit in Iowa means that with the correction applied, Clinton would win it by a mile, even though it's close without the correction.HYUFD said:Trump outperformed his polling in Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania though which are key swing states. If he wins those states and Ohio and Iowa which he often leads he wins if he holds all the Romney states bar North Carolina. If the white working class turn out in greater numbers than expected in 2016 compared to 2012 and minority turnout is lower he could win. African Americans for instance are 18% less enthusiastic about the 2016 election than the 2012 election and 28% less enthusiastic than compared to the 2008 election
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-1476702003
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/0 -
Super interesting article on the LA Times poll.
Due to their extreme generosity with the underlying data it is eay to apply your own weightings. Once you apply "standard" weightings to it it basiclly follows the RCP polling average almost perfectly.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/19/the-virtues-of-the-l-a-times-poll/0 -
Compared to Kasich, Bush, Rubio and even Cruz voters Trump voters were less well off and of course primary voters tend to be richer on average than general election voters anyway. Democratic primary voters tend to be less well off than GOP ones mainly because of the below average median income of African American voters who participate in themAlistair said:
Who are Trump's Blue Collar base? Trump primary voters were not Blue Collar workersHYUFD said:
Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/-1 -
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Michigan is safe for her.Alistair said:
That's some seriously unskewed polls.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumper
You might want to rewrite the header, unless you actually want people to think you're a French spy who doesn't quite have fluency0 -
Wrong, if you get enough of the white working class out to vote for you or African Americans to vote for you can win without them (Obama lost white college educated women for instance to Romney).619 said:
you know college educated white women are one of the most important demographics in US elections right? You have no chance without them.HYUFD said:
Yes and apart from college educated white women which voters are really motivated to go out and vote for Hillary on a cold November evening? African Americans? No, they much preferred Obama. Liberals and the young? No they much preferred Sandersweejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
Trump's blue collar base however will be at the polls to vote for him come hell or high water
Also, liberals, the young, hispanics and AA's will def vote to keep Trump out of the white house
The young are 16% less interested in the 2016 election than 2012 and almost 30% less interested than 2008, African Americans are 18% less interested than 2012 and 28% less interested than 2008
http://www.wsj.com/articles/voter-interest-in-election-falls-14767020030 -
Yeah, and Trump isn't on course to win any of the grey states.nunu said:
Michigan is safe for her.Alistair said:
That's some seriously unskewed polls.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/7883155650227322880 -
I dont know, some sort of emotional desire to see Hillary win I suppose. Sure is tedious though.DavidL said:
Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.DavidL said:
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.0 -
On topic- I do wonder about these numbers. A lot can happen in the last three weeks of campaigning.0
-
You don't feel the burning desire to correct someone who is wrong on the internet?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I dont know, some sort of emotional desire to see Hillary win I suppose. Sure is tedious though.DavidL said:
Except almost none of us has a vote. Which makes you wonder what the point is really.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Indeed the Hillary ramping by the likes of our own dear 619 giving the impression that it is all over bar the shouting could actually be a disastrous own goal.DavidL said:
Only if they think its close.AlastairMeeks said:
The electorate is confronted with two candidates that the public will queue up to vote against.DavidL said:
I would not rule out less than 50% turnout. Who can possibly be enthusiastic for this choice? Too busy picking their noses would be my guess, especially if it does not get any closer than it is right now.weejonnie said:
The LA Times says 85% turnout - but past history suggests 55% or so turnout. Between those two figures there is an awful lot of quantum foam.HYUFD said:
Yes and turnout and particularly who turnsout is key, as it was for BrexitPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - clinton has to be favourite but there is still a lot of potential for a 1992 type shock.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
It would help if we could have more light rather than heat from certain quarters.
0 -
Only because she won Iowa by 0.2%, had she lost Iowa she would likely have been toast as Sanders comfortably won New Hampshire and no candidate has won both those states and failed to be nominee619 said:
Clinton won by 4 million votes. Wasnt particularly closeHYUFD said:
The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders raceMalmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
Hmmm - Theresa May gives her a run for her money.nunu said:
Hmmm your right I think, she's the luckiest person in the world.SeanT said:
She's facing the worst Republican candidate I can remember in my lifetime. No, we're not underestimating her. She's terrible, he's even worse, and by a distance.nunu said:
He was losing before the tape came out as Clinton rallied after the first debate and then increased her lead again after the second. People underestimate Clinton too much.SeanT said:
The nativist, "Islamophobic", anti-PC and protectionist stuff would, I aver, go down very well, if sold by a plausible and halfway charming candidate. Indeed I think it would win. I can see a folksy Reagan figure pitching it well.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
The pussy-grabbing stuff, and the frothing braggadocio - that's what lost Trump this election.
0 -
That race certainly would have been high turnoutMalmesbury said:
The wall stuff is a key part of Trump's idiocy, yes. But a populist of the right could appeal to the base in many other ways.HYUFD said:
The wall stuff is all a key part of Trump's platform and it motivated his base. Had Sanders got just 0.3% more in Iowa he would have won the caucus there and added to his NH win would almost certainly have become nominee and we would now be in the closing stages of a Trump v Sanders raceMalmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...
Trump vs Bernie would be interesting to imagine - I keep thinking that Trump would fail to lay a glove on Bernie.0 -
Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillarynunu said:
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.HYUFD said:
As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussennunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
2) there are more Dems
3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.
4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.0 -
Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?
I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.
Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?
0 -
I dont think even Corbyn has dared suggest that the offspringnof families with a household income of £80,000 should be exempt from University fees.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
Anyone voting for her on those grounds is likely in for disappointment.0 -
I'll vote for Nuttall over Evans. I quite like her, but I think he'd better.MikeL said:Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?
I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.
Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?0 -
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
If it's Trump +1.8% (Florida), he puts it in the Trump column.MikeK said:So what do PBers make of this?:
https://twitter.com/StatesPoll/status/788315565022732288
If it's Clinton +2.0% (Pennsylvania), he puts it in the to close to call column.0 -
UKIP is Farage and Banks's plaything - or so they treat it - and neither of them want Evans. Therefore, despite her very solid performances on the media, she is probably doomed since without Farage or money the party itself is doomed (insofar as it isn't already so).tlg86 said:
I'll vote for Nuttall over Evans. I quite like her, but I think he'd better.MikeL said:Any views on why Nuttall is clear odds on favourite for UKIP leader?
I would have thought Suzanne Evans would be similar odds to him? She was a day or two ago when I last checked.
Is it because people think Evans and Kassam will split a similar vote allowing Nuttall to win under FPTP?0 -
Killing a baby to save an adult? Surely it should be the other way around!nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0
