politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Zac ahead 56%-29% in first Richmond poll and seems to be getti

System · October 2016

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Zac ahead 56%-29% in first Richmond poll and seems to be getting backing of the Standard

More from BMG poll. Goldsmith holds 74% of 2015 Con vote and would win even if there was a Con candidate (34 Zac / 25 LD / 20 Con) pic.twitter.com/XDTHUCNxOD

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles · October 2016

First like Remain in the 1975 referendum

TheScreamingEagles · October 2016

Are we still believing constituency polling after 2015?

619 · October 2016

Donald is running out of cash

https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/791849624382246913

HYUFD · October 2016

That result would be a humiliation for the LDs after the effort they are putting in and a boost for hard BREXITeers given the LDs want to campaign on that rather than Heathrow which was what Zac called the by election on

MaxPB · October 2016

Available at 1.65 on BF, still value IMO. The 5/4 from a few days ago was free money.

Pulpstar · October 2016

TheScreamingEagles said:
Are we still believing constituency polling after 2015?

Yes.

Or long answer "Enough to be confident Zac will win"

Can you name me anywhere where a 26 pt lead in ANY poll got the wrong winner ?

The two question approach from Ashcroft was shown to be deeply flawed, the SW Comres 1 question polls were bang on.

PlatoSaid · October 2016

I feel sorry for Mika - she's so disappointed in Hillary - her face says it all.

https://youtu.be/Fls2S6vbFaM

https://youtu.be/CTNbY978YQU

MaxPB · October 2016

In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.

SimonStClare · October 2016

Zac getting the backing of the Standard...

Does that count for much?

And a good afternoon to all.

MarqueeMark · October 2016

But...but...but - the five story house....

Won't somebody think of the homeless?

619 · October 2016

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-bets-on-the-missing-five-million-1477524243

Karl Rove seems to think that Trump's 'missing voters' aren't coming out

Gardenwalker · October 2016

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.

Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!

TheScreamingEagles · October 2016

I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..

Pulpstar · October 2016

619 said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-bets-on-the-missing-five-million-1477524243

Karl Rove seems to think that Trump's 'missing voters' aren't coming out

They're the sort of voters that will head out on the day methinks (Not saying they will, but we won't know till Nov 8th)

619 · October 2016

SimonStClare said:
Zac getting the backing of the Standard...

Does that count for much?

And a good afternoon to all.

It didn't during the mayoral.

I think the Lib dems need to go in hard on his behaviour during the mayoral campaign. he clearly isn't walking away from it, and it paints him in a very bad light in liberal Richmond.

619 · October 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'

Pulpstar · October 2016

I wonder if Zac will bring up the Lib Dem Mansion tax plan in his literature ?

Although I'd have thought the good people of Richmond Park would not mind paying their fair share.

HYUFD · October 2016

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'

RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status

MarqueeMark · October 2016

TheScreamingEagles said:
I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..

Stay with OGH's party line and put money on the LibDems in the by-election - or back Zac and crack?

MarkSenior · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Are we still believing constituency polling after 2015?
Yes.

Or long answer "Enough to be confident Zac will win"

Can you name me anywhere where a 26 pt lead in ANY poll got the wrong winner ?

The two question approach from Ashcroft was shown to be deeply flawed, the SW Comres 1 question polls were bang on.

Heywood and Middleton poll had a 19 point lead and a 2 point margin at polling day

619 · October 2016

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status

Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'

HYUFD · October 2016

TheScreamingEagles said:
I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..

No as May had the common sense not to put up a pro Heathrow Tory and play Zac's game instead making the story about a potentially dreadful night for the LDs on an anti hard BREXIT platform

Chris · October 2016

brokenwheel said:
Reps appear to have won another day of the Florida early vote since the start of in-person. Up to a 52140 lead in vote by mail, up 5905. In-person the Dem lead grew only 3306, up to 37791. Things will be clearer after Souls to the Polls Sunday.

I'm puzzled, because this CNN report, published today, says:
Now that in-person early voting is underway, the GOP advantage has been slashed by about two-thirds. They were up by about 18,000 votes earlier this week, but now they lead by only about 6,000 -- or 0.3 percentage points. While they are still leading, they are far behind the advantage of 6.8 points -- almost 73,000 votes -- that they had at this point in 2008.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/early-voting-update-clinton-trump-election-2016/

That would be good news for Clinton, because in 2008 the Democrats won Florida by 2.8%. But it doesn't seem to tally with the official figures, which apparently show the Republicans still more than 14,000 ahead. On the other hand, that would be only 0.5% of the total, so if CNN's figures for 2008 are right the Republican percentage lead would still be well down on that election.

The report also says the Democrat percentage lead in early voting in North Carolina is down on the 2012 figure for the same time, which is obviously bad news for Clinton. Also that the Democrat percentage lead in Iowa is down on 2012, but only by 2.3 points, which is less than their winning margin of 5.8% in 2012. And similarly the Republican percentage lead in Arizona is down by 6.8 points on 2012, again less than their 2012 winning margin of 9%.

PlatoSaid · October 2016

An observation of MSM coverage of Hillary/Wikileaks.

After largely ignoring it entirely - then Fox going for it, it's now getting traction all over. The Teneo memo is everywhere. Why this has electrified them puzzles me - but it's happened.

It's frontpage WSJ, WaPo and NYT.

I'm getting the distinct impression that the MSM are seeing a train crash rushing at them and are running out of the way to get ahead of it.

There's a simple brand reputation issue here - how long will you corporately ignore a skipful of crap to defend your preferred choice vs it's more damaging to stick with her. That MSNBC has turned on her says a lot. The NYT too.

I think we crossed that red line yesterday.

619 · October 2016

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'

Oh, and they also have texas as a toss up

HisEminence · October 2016

I've no idea if this poll is correct but Mike's desperation for a Lib win is a cause of much amusement to me anyway.

HYUFD · October 2016

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'

It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire

timmo · October 2016

I'm still not convinced they will pick Olney..

619 · October 2016

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire

She has philly in her pocket, which will always outvote the suburbs.

Anyway, if PA is a toss up, so is Texas

PlatoSaid · October 2016

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire

The assumption that all D voters are voting for Hillary is intriguing. I keep seeing reports and intvs with Ds who are voting Trump because they wanted Bernie. Or Stein or Johnson.

I'm very chary of making bloc vote assumptions. The same with D+7-12 polling that assume the same enthusiasm as Obama. That's laughable - and enormously misleading.

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?

Those betting on this stuff will hopefully look a bit deeper than the headlines beforehand.

MarqueeMark · October 2016

PlatoSaid said:
An observation of MSM coverage of Hillary/Wikileaks.

After largely ignoring it entirely - then Fox going for it, it's now getting traction all over. The Teneo memo is everywhere. Why this has electrified them puzzles me - but it's happened.

It's frontpage WSJ, WaPo and NYT.

I'm getting the distinct impression that the MSM are seeing a train crash rushing at them and are running out of the way to get ahead of it.

There's a simple brand reputation issue here - how long will you corporately ignore a skipful of crap to defend your preferred choice vs it's more damaging to stick with her. That MSNBC has turned on her says a lot. The NYT too.

I think we crossed that red line yesterday.

I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.

(OK, maybe Portillo losing to that political Titan Stephen Twigg...)

HYUFD · October 2016

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
She has philly in her pocket, which will always outvote the suburbs.

Anyway, if PA is a toss up, so is Texas

African American turnout will be lower in Philly than 2012 and Pennsylvania has a GOP Senators and Congressional majority. Texas could be close too but a Den has not won Texas since 1976, the GOP last won Pennsylvania in 1988

MarqueeMark · October 2016

timmo said:
I'm still not convinced they will pick Olney..

Because she's not a middle-aged white guy?

619 · October 2016

PlatoSaid said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
The assumption that all D voters are voting for Hillary is intriguing. I keep seeing reports and intvs with Ds who are voting Trump because they wanted Bernie. Or Stein or Johnson.

I'm very chary of making bloc vote assumptions. The same with D+7-12 polling that assume the same enthusiasm as Obama. That's laughable - and enormously misleading.

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?

Those betting on this stuff will hopefully look a bit deeper than the headlines beforehand.

Same assumption about republicans voting for Trump, when LOADS (especially women) are saying they never will.

Stein and Johnson are non-entities. They will be lucky to get over 3% of the vote. The only third party spoiler is McMullan, who may get Utah from your precious Donald

SimonStClare · October 2016

timmo said:
I'm still not convinced they will pick Olney..

I thought Sarah Olney had been selected already, she’s even deleted her website in prep...!

Pulpstar · October 2016

PlatoSaid said:

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?

An excellent point about the phone response rates, the margin of error in polling is alot larger than a simple sample of red/blue balls in a large container would be to estimate the true numbers, precisely for this reason.

MaxPB · October 2016

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!

Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.

williamglenn · October 2016

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.

I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.

Pulpstar · October 2016

A reminder that the polls can be wrong...............

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/#polls-only

ThreeQuidder · October 2016

619 said:

SimonStClare said:
Zac getting the backing of the Standard...

Does that count for much?

And a good afternoon to all.
It didn't during the mayoral.

You can't be sure about that, as you don't know what would have happened had the ES covered it differently.

Richard_Nabavi · October 2016

I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”

HYUFD · October 2016

PlatoSaid said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
The assumption that all D voters are voting for Hillary is intriguing. I keep seeing reports and intvs with Ds who are voting Trump because they wanted Bernie. Or Stein or Johnson.

I'm very chary of making bloc vote assumptions. The same with D+7-12 polling that assume the same enthusiasm as Obama. That's laughable - and enormously misleading.

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?

Those betting on this stuff will hopefully look a bit deeper than the headlines beforehand.

Indeed there are more blue collar Democrats who will vote for Trump than college educated Republicans who will vote for Hillary in my view, some Republicans may also vote Johnson rather than Clinton

Sandpit · October 2016

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.

Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.

Barnesian · October 2016

619 said:

SimonStClare said:
Zac getting the backing of the Standard...

Does that count for much?

And a good afternoon to all.
It didn't during the mayoral.

I think the Lib dems need to go in hard on his behaviour during the mayoral campaign. he clearly isn't walking away from it, and it paints him in a very bad light in liberal Richmond.

I think that would be a big mistake. RP people, including non-Tories, like Zac and if you attack him personally you will push them into his camp. It is best to ignore him (except for pointing out his Brexit credentials) and make it a referendum on the Government's approach to Brexit.

I'm just back from delivering and just catching up on the poll. I can't get at the raw data or the actual questions asked or the weighting method. It seems as if just over 400 people had an opinion out of electorate of 77,000. Most will not have heard of Sarah Olney.

Daily Politics held a voodoo balls poll in Richmond High Street yesterday which showed a very large majority thought Brexit more important than Heathrow. Sample size of about 250 I think and chosen by the presenter i.e. not self-selecting but not weighted either.

The 27% majority in the poll for Zac is large and can't be ignored. But it shouldn't be over-emphasised either. It is a small sample, there may be weighting issues if LibDem responders are weighted back to the May 15 numbers, and it is very early days.

Because of the poll, I have adjusted my estimate of a LibDem victory back from 50% to 40%. It started at 36%.

Pulpstar · October 2016

MarkSenior said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Are we still believing constituency polling after 2015?
Yes.

Or long answer "Enough to be confident Zac will win"

Can you name me anywhere where a 26 pt lead in ANY poll got the wrong winner ?

The two question approach from Ashcroft was shown to be deeply flawed, the SW Comres 1 question polls were bang on.
Heywood and Middleton poll had a 19 point lead and a 2 point margin at polling day

Michigan +37 Clinton, Sanders +1.5 actual is the most off poll in the last few years I think.

Richmond alot more homogenous though.

brokenwheel · October 2016

Chris said:

brokenwheel said:
Reps appear to have won another day of the Florida early vote since the start of in-person. Up to a 52140 lead in vote by mail, up 5905. In-person the Dem lead grew only 3306, up to 37791. Things will be clearer after Souls to the Polls Sunday.
I'm puzzled, because this CNN report, published today, says:
Now that in-person early voting is underway, the GOP advantage has been slashed by about two-thirds. They were up by about 18,000 votes earlier this week, but now they lead by only about 6,000 -- or 0.3 percentage points. While they are still leading, they are far behind the advantage of 6.8 points -- almost 73,000 votes -- that they had at this point in 2008.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/early-voting-update-clinton-trump-election-2016/

That would be good news for Clinton, because in 2008 the Democrats won Florida by 2.8%. But it doesn't seem to tally with the official figures, which apparently show the Republicans still more than 14,000 ahead. On the other hand, that would be only 0.5% of the total, so if CNN's figures for 2008 are right the Republican percentage lead would still be well down on that election.

The report also says the Democrat percentage lead in early voting in North Carolina is down on the 2012 figure for the same time, which is obviously bad news for Clinton. Also that the Democrat percentage lead in Iowa is down on 2012, but only by 2.3 points, which is less than their winning margin of 5.8% in 2012. And similarly the Republican percentage lead in Arizona is down by 6.8 points on 2012, again less than their 2012 winning margin of 9%.

They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.

But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.

I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.

Sandpit · October 2016

Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”

I still don't understand why the people of Richmond feel so strongly against having fewer planes flying over their houses!

GeoffM · October 2016

timmo said:
I'm still not convinced they will pick Olney..

MarqueeMark said:

Because she's not a middle-aged white guy?

It's not worth it. They'd have to build new toilets and baby changing facilities and stuff, and then she'll lose and it'll all be wasted.

Richard_Nabavi · October 2016

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”
I still don't understand why the people of Richmond feel so strongly against having fewer planes flying over their houses!

Because they don't believe it.

MaxPB · October 2016

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.

Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer · October 2016

TheScreamingEagles said:
I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..

Are any of your puns NOT awful?

HYUFD · October 2016

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.

Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.

Pulpstar · October 2016

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.
Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.

What a mess. The gross asset inflation even costs the taxpayer money through housing benefit.

[Deleted User] · October 2016

I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.

She'll win. And then Tim Kaine will make a reasonable POTUS once the funeral is out of the way.

Pulpstar · October 2016

Patrick said:
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.

She'll win. And then Tim Kaine will make a reasonable POTUS once the funeral is out of the way.

She will be a one term president at the most I reckon.

Pulpstar · October 2016

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.

Lol Sanders will be way too old by 2020 to run.

HYUFD · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.
Lol Sanders will be way too old by 2020 to run.

Warren then

619 · October 2016

2.9% US growth, an increase from the 2.5% expected.

MaxPB · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.
Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.
What a mess. The gross asset inflation even costs the taxpayer money through housing benefit.

Well at least there will be a few domestic beneficiaries who will be able to afford to buy their own homes without so much overseas competition.

[Deleted User] · October 2016

She will be a one term president at the most I reckon

My comment was a reference to a strongly held hunch that she'll be assassinated PDQ if she wins. Whoever wins the Secret Service have a nightmare few years to look forward to.

weejonnie · October 2016

TheScreamingEagles said:
I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..

The one I liked best was about a Middlesbrough attacker missing training and rumoured to be leaving the club.

'Emerson late and Palma?'

PlatoSaid · October 2016

MarqueeMark said:

PlatoSaid said:
An observation of MSM coverage of Hillary/Wikileaks.

After largely ignoring it entirely - then Fox going for it, it's now getting traction all over. The Teneo memo is everywhere. Why this has electrified them puzzles me - but it's happened.

It's frontpage WSJ, WaPo and NYT.

I'm getting the distinct impression that the MSM are seeing a train crash rushing at them and are running out of the way to get ahead of it.

There's a simple brand reputation issue here - how long will you corporately ignore a skipful of crap to defend your preferred choice vs it's more damaging to stick with her. That MSNBC has turned on her says a lot. The NYT too.

I think we crossed that red line yesterday.
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.

(OK, maybe Portillo losing to that political Titan Stephen Twigg...)

I've honestly watched hundreds of hours of US news and the same on Twitter/podcasts/Youtube stuff. I can't be more engaged or informed.

I've eff all idea what Hillary stands for bar hugging illegal aliens - she wants to give them all the vote and welcome more in as they'll vote Democrat - the USA can become California using this tactic.

I think we all recall Tony Blair doing precisely the same here. ObamaCare is a massive one for Trump - premiums are rising to more than the average house payment. It looks like a deliberate make-fail policy to push single payer.

I'm incredibly cynical after all the stuff I've seen and read. I was pretty positive about good guys in politics until about 2005 - and now it's all being leached away. And Wikileaks/MSM response has stunned me.

I simply don't care what the MSM says anymore about politics - it's all beyond bent/incestuous.

Barnesian · October 2016

SimonStClare said:

timmo said:
I'm still not convinced they will pick Olney..
I thought Sarah Olney had been selected already, she’s even deleted her website in prep...!

It has to be confirmed by the local membership. I'm almost certain it will.

For those who missed it, here she is up against Andrew Neil on Daily Politics at 12:05.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b080xt7r/daily-politics-26102016

HYUFD · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

Patrick said:
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
She'll win. And then Tim Kaine will make a reasonable POTUS once the funeral is out of the way.

'She will be a one term president at the most I reckon.'

Disagree, if she wins I think the GOP pick Cruz in 2020 who she will beat. Trump is, for me, still a more dangerous opponent for her than Cruz as he has more appeal to the white working class and blue collar Democrats

Pulpstar · October 2016

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.
Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.
What a mess. The gross asset inflation even costs the taxpayer money through housing benefit.
Well at least there will be a few domestic beneficiaries who will be able to afford to buy their own homes without so much overseas competition.

NW5 and W6 seem to be the two London postcodes whre I have a tiny bit of interest, any idea on those

?

GeoffM · October 2016

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”
I still don't understand why the people of Richmond feel so strongly against having fewer planes flying over their houses!
Because they don't believe it.

Do they believe this reasonably or unreasonably? Is it true?

I genuinely don't know and I would be grateful for clarification.

paulbarker · October 2016

On Topic. This is a good result for The Libdems before the campaign has started. With 5 weeks to go The LDs are up 10% already. The classic 3rd Party squeeze is off to a good start before they have even begun to be hit by the "Labour cant win here" leaflets. In fact The LDs havent completed delivery of the introductory leaflet yet.
UKIP & Leave.UKs backing of Goldsmith completely undermines his "this is not about Brexit" line. Goldsmith is the joint Tory/UKIP candidate hiding behind an Independent mask.
I wonder if this will be the last Poll The Standard publishes ?

Malmesbury · October 2016

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”
I still don't understand why the people of Richmond feel so strongly against having fewer planes flying over their houses!
Because they don't believe it.

Quite - Heathrow's owners have lied consistently over the years - if they say they are not going to do {thing}, then they will do {thing}.

So if they say they have no plans for more than x flights, it is utterly certain that they are planning to increase it to 4x. That is the belief of many, many residents in West London.

MarkSenior · October 2016

FWIW My initial forecast for Richmond is Zac 52 LD 38 Others 10

david_herdson · October 2016

MarqueeMark said:

PlatoSaid said:
An observation of MSM coverage of Hillary/Wikileaks.

After largely ignoring it entirely - then Fox going for it, it's now getting traction all over. The Teneo memo is everywhere. Why this has electrified them puzzles me - but it's happened.

It's frontpage WSJ, WaPo and NYT.

I'm getting the distinct impression that the MSM are seeing a train crash rushing at them and are running out of the way to get ahead of it.

There's a simple brand reputation issue here - how long will you corporately ignore a skipful of crap to defend your preferred choice vs it's more damaging to stick with her. That MSNBC has turned on her says a lot. The NYT too.

I think we crossed that red line yesterday.
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.

Losing to Zac Goldsmith?

[ducks]

david_herdson · October 2016

Patrick said:
She will be a one term president at the most I reckon.

My comment was a reference to a strongly held hunch that she'll be assassinated PDQ if she wins. Whoever wins the Secret Service have a nightmare few years to look forward to.

As opposed to the last eight, at least?

Pulpstar · October 2016

paulbarker said:
On Topic. This is a good result for The Libdems before the campaign has started. With 5 weeks to go The LDs are up 10% already. The classic 3rd Party squeeze is off to a good start before they have even begun to be hit by the "Labour cant win here" leaflets. In fact The LDs havent completed delivery of the introductory leaflet yet.
UKIP & Leave.UKs backing of Goldsmith completely undermines his "this is not about Brexit" line. Goldsmith is the joint Tory/UKIP candidate hiding behind an Independent mask.
I wonder if this will be the last Poll The Standard publishes ?

UKIP not standing is good for Zac even though it is not great publicity, as he'll get all the UKIP votes. Its as simple as that really.

PlatoSaid · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

PlatoSaid said:

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?
An excellent point about the phone response rates, the margin of error in polling is alot larger than a simple sample of red/blue balls in a large container would be to estimate the true numbers, precisely for this reason.

Thanks - I just get enormously frustrated at PB liberal in-group think that poo-poos anything contrary.

This is a betting site and if we ignore out-group information - well it's daft.

Jobabob · October 2016

HYUFD said:

PlatoSaid said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
The assumption that all D voters are voting for Hillary is intriguing. I keep seeing reports and intvs with Ds who are voting Trump because they wanted Bernie. Or Stein or Johnson.

I'm very chary of making bloc vote assumptions. The same with D+7-12 polling that assume the same enthusiasm as Obama. That's laughable - and enormously misleading.

I gather that phone polling is getting about a 9% response rate - no matter what your sample integrity had at the start - WTF does 9% look like?

Those betting on this stuff will hopefully look a bit deeper than the headlines beforehand.
Indeed there are more blue collar Democrats who will vote for Trump than college educated Republicans who will vote for Hillary in my view, some Republicans may also vote Johnson rather than Clinton

HYUFD

ARE YOU PREDICTING A TRUMP VICTORY?

Indigo · October 2016

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.

Sanders would easily beat Trump, so probably would Warren, they would have a much tough job against Pence on a neo-Trumper platform (mad as hell, but with less stupidity and misogyny)

weejonnie · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

MarkSenior said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Are we still believing constituency polling after 2015?
Yes.

Or long answer "Enough to be confident Zac will win"

Can you name me anywhere where a 26 pt lead in ANY poll got the wrong winner ?

The two question approach from Ashcroft was shown to be deeply flawed, the SW Comres 1 question polls were bang on.
Heywood and Middleton poll had a 19 point lead and a 2 point margin at polling day
Michigan +37 Clinton, Sanders +1.5 actual is the most off poll in the last few years I think.

Richmond alot more homogenous though.

Both polls seem to have omitted previous unlikely voters who then decided to turn out. Not important for Richmond but could be important elsewhere.

brokenwheel · October 2016

brokenwheel said:

Chris said:

brokenwheel said:
Reps appear to have won another day of the Florida early vote since the start of in-person. Up to a 52140 lead in vote by mail, up 5905. In-person the Dem lead grew only 3306, up to 37791. Things will be clearer after Souls to the Polls Sunday.
I'm puzzled, because this CNN report, published today, says:
Now that in-person early voting is underway, the GOP advantage has been slashed by about two-thirds. They were up by about 18,000 votes earlier this week, but now they lead by only about 6,000 -- or 0.3 percentage points. While they are still leading, they are far behind the advantage of 6.8 points -- almost 73,000 votes -- that they had at this point in 2008.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/early-voting-update-clinton-trump-election-2016/

That would be good news for Clinton, because in 2008 the Democrats won Florida by 2.8%. But it doesn't seem to tally with the official figures, which apparently show the Republicans still more than 14,000 ahead. On the other hand, that would be only 0.5% of the total, so if CNN's figures for 2008 are right the Republican percentage lead would still be well down on that election.

The report also says the Democrat percentage lead in early voting in North Carolina is down on the 2012 figure for the same time, which is obviously bad news for Clinton. Also that the Democrat percentage lead in Iowa is down on 2012, but only by 2.3 points, which is less than their winning margin of 5.8% in 2012. And similarly the Republican percentage lead in Arizona is down by 6.8 points on 2012, again less than their 2012 winning margin of 9%.
They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.

But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.

I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.

Further you must understand the 2008 vote. Reps had something like 250000 mail lead, but Obama posted about 580000 lead in in-person over the 14-days. So while far behind he had incredible in-person votes that quickly overcame the GOP advantage. So while the Reps have a much smaller advantage now the Dems have only got less than a 40000 lead in in-person after 4 days, and most of the lead came on the first day.

PlatoSaid · October 2016

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.

#HillaryForPrison

[Deleted User] · October 2016

This is very funny and horribly true:
https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/a-handy-guide-to-left-wing-people-for-the-under-10s/

Jobabob · October 2016

Can the PB Trumptons make their forecasts please?

Rather than Nudge Nudge Wink Wink, let us know what you think the result of the election will be.

For reasons of transparency. I am long on Trump but think Hillary will win narrowly, chiefly due to overperforming in the Rockies.

I think Trump will carry FL and OH.

MaxPB · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Pulpstar said:

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.
Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.
What a mess. The gross asset inflation even costs the taxpayer money through housing benefit.
Well at least there will be a few domestic beneficiaries who will be able to afford to buy their own homes without so much overseas competition.
NW5 and W6 seem to be the two London postcodes whre I have a tiny bit of interest, any idea on those ?

I'm near W6, the market seems brisk around these parts, the new John Lewis will mean a slower drop in prices I think.

Jobabob · October 2016

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.
Sanders would easily beat Trump, so probably would Warren, they would have a much tough job against Pence on a neo-Trumper platform (mad as hell, but with less stupidity and misogyny)

Sanders would have lost against almost any opponent, had he won the Dem nomination. The US wouldn't elect a socialist president.

Black_Rook · October 2016

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
I've got an awful pun coming up.

Zac back with a massive majority and the will government crack over Heathrow?

Short headline - Zac back and crack..
No as May had the common sense not to put up a pro Heathrow Tory and play Zac's game instead making the story about a potentially dreadful night for the LDs on an anti hard BREXIT platform

Exactly. Unless the Lib Dems can pull this one out of the fire then the PM will be comprehensively vindicated, and - with the failure to come close or squeeze Labour in Witney still fresh in the memory - the LDs will be made to look even more like a busted flush than they were before. Goldsmith's protest will make not one iota of difference to Government policy on Heathrow, and perhaps going forward some people will stop wetting themselves with excitement over the odd district council by-election gain, and start taking more notice of the LD position in the national VI polls.

Remember, they were polling about 8% nationally before the 2015 GE, they actually won about 8% of the vote, and they've continued to poll about 8% nationally since. Flatlining for years, and heading for catastrophe: they start with notional majorities in just four seats after boundary reform, so making headway is a matter of survival. Assuming that the next GE will be held on schedule then they still have enough time to re-evaluate their strategy and try a different approach, which I would politely suggest is a matter of urgency. Trying to get themselves heard by campaigning primarily as the Anti-Ukip for Continuity Remainers hasn't done them much good, and this seems unlikely to change.

May has set up what's left of Farron's team for a big fall, at no real risk to her own reputation. The LDs have a month to try to make the whole of Goldsmith's enormous majority go away. Otherwise, people will be perfectly entitled to ask: if they can't win somewhere like Richmond Park, then where can they win again?

matt · October 2016

Jobabob said:
Can the PB Trumptons make their forecasts please?

Rather than Nudge Nudge Wink Wink, let us know what you think the result of the election will be.

For reasons of transparency. I am long on Trump but think Hillary will win narrowly, chiefly due to overperforming in the Rockies.

I think Trump will carry FL and OH.

Do the rampers risk money?

MaxPB · October 2016

Jobabob said:

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.
Sanders would easily beat Trump, so probably would Warren, they would have a much tough job against Pence on a neo-Trumper platform (mad as hell, but with less stupidity and misogyny)
Sanders would have lost against almost any opponent, had he won the Dem nomination. The US wouldn't elect a socialist president.

Sanders would be 15 points up against Trump.

619 · October 2016

brokenwheel said:

brokenwheel said:

Chris said:

brokenwheel said:
Reps appear to have won another day of the Florida early vote since the start of in-person. Up to a 52140 lead in vote by mail, up 5905. In-person the Dem lead grew only 3306, up to 37791. Things will be clearer after Souls to the Polls Sunday.
I'm puzzled, because this CNN report, published today, says:
Now that in-person early voting is underway, the GOP advantage has been slashed by about two-thirds. They were up by about 18,000 votes earlier this week, but now they lead by only about 6,000 -- or 0.3 percentage points. While they are still leading, they are far behind the advantage of 6.8 points -- almost 73,000 votes -- that they had at this point in 2008.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/27/politics/early-voting-update-clinton-trump-election-2016/

That would be good news for Clinton, because in 2008 the Democrats won Florida by 2.8%. But it doesn't seem to tally with the official figures, which apparently show the Republicans still more than 14,000 ahead. On the other hand, that would be only 0.5% of the total, so if CNN's figures for 2008 are right the Republican percentage lead would still be well down on that election.

The report also says the Democrat percentage lead in early voting in North Carolina is down on the 2012 figure for the same time, which is obviously bad news for Clinton. Also that the Democrat percentage lead in Iowa is down on 2012, but only by 2.3 points, which is less than their winning margin of 5.8% in 2012. And similarly the Republican percentage lead in Arizona is down by 6.8 points on 2012, again less than their 2012 winning margin of 9%.
They are mixing figures. The GOP held a 113000 vote by mail advantage in 2012 by the end of early voting, not now. So the GOP lead of only 30000 in vote by mail at the beginning of in-person is a drop of over two thirds, but not exactly comparing apples to apples.

But this is only good for democrats if they vote in-person is strong like it normally is. Currently their daily leads are in the 3-6000 range which is pretty poor.

I don't know where the other figures are from but they aren't the official stats.
Further you must understand the 2008 vote. Reps had something like 250000 mail lead, but Obama posted about 580000 lead in in-person over the 14-days. So while far behind he had incredible in-person votes that quickly overcame the GOP advantage. So while the Reps have a much smaller advantage now the Dems have only got less than a 40000 lead in in-person after 4 days, and most of the lead came on the first day.

Didn't the fact that in person voting started on a weekend when it hasn't this year had an effect?

PClipp · October 2016

HYUFD said:
That result would be a humiliation for the LDs after the effort they are putting in and a boost for hard BREXITeers given the LDs want to campaign on that rather than Heathrow which was what Zac called the by election on

Doesn`t Zac support the Lib Dem position on Heathrow?

foxinsoxuk · October 2016

Pulpstar said:

paulbarker said:
On Topic. This is a good result for The Libdems before the campaign has started. With 5 weeks to go The LDs are up 10% already. The classic 3rd Party squeeze is off to a good start before they have even begun to be hit by the "Labour cant win here" leaflets. In fact The LDs havent completed delivery of the introductory leaflet yet.
UKIP & Leave.UKs backing of Goldsmith completely undermines his "this is not about Brexit" line. Goldsmith is the joint Tory/UKIP candidate hiding behind an Independent mask.
I wonder if this will be the last Poll The Standard publishes ?
UKIP not standing is good for Zac even though it is not great publicity, as he'll get all the UKIP votes. Its as simple as that really.

Really?

While he is a Leaver, kippers are not normally so keen on the whole Global Warmist posh-boy schtick.

Sandpit · October 2016

MaxPB said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:
In amongst Brexit, spare a thought for the Frogs. Growth of 0.2% today, with possible downwards revisions given INSEE's bullishness. That means 0.1% over the last six months vs 1.2% for the UK.
Except that at PPP they're now a decent margin ahead of us!
Hmm, probably not at PPP given that our purchasing power probably hasn't gone down that much. Definitely on a nominal basis in USD. But with 2.3% growth and 2.5% inflation it will be all of two years until that normalises as well.

The next interesting figures will be the UK balance of payments. Our overseas income should have surged while money leaving should have stagnated since most of contracts are paid in Sterling.

An interesting case I know personally. A friend of mine has just bought a property from Malaysian investors for ~£875k or around $1.06m, they bought the property in 2014 for £1.1m or around $1.84m, the decline in price is fair for prime London property since then but the loss to the Malaysian investors has been absolutely huge. They invested $1.84m with the expectations of a 2% rental yield according to my friend and the expectation of a 4-7% annual capital gain, they've ended up with a 40% capital loss and the rental yield at 2% of the current value would give them just over 1% on their original investment.

These figures are going to start biting for overseas property owners soon. Especially highly leveraged ones.
Turning that around somewhat, now is absolutely the time to buy London property as an overseas investor. In the last couple of months there's loads of ads appeared in the Middle East from London agents and developers, selling the 20% depreciation in Sterling as representing fantastic value for overseas buyers.

As always with property, the secret is to avoid being in the position of having to sell.
Someone said the current London market will end up being Arabs and Russians who sold to Malaysian and Chinese investors in 2014-2015 buying back at 45-50% discounts.

There's probably more than a grain of truth in that.

Jobabob · October 2016

MaxPB said:

Jobabob said:

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.
Sanders would easily beat Trump, so probably would Warren, they would have a much tough job against Pence on a neo-Trumper platform (mad as hell, but with less stupidity and misogyny)
Sanders would have lost against almost any opponent, had he won the Dem nomination. The US wouldn't elect a socialist president.
Sanders would be 15 points up against Trump.

Absolutely no chance.

Pulpstar · October 2016

matt said:

Jobabob said:
Can the PB Trumptons make their forecasts please?

Rather than Nudge Nudge Wink Wink, let us know what you think the result of the election will be.

For reasons of transparency. I am long on Trump but think Hillary will win narrowly, chiefly due to overperforming in the Rockies.

I think Trump will carry FL and OH.
Do the rampers risk money?

A good question for @619

DavidL · October 2016

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'

I did this exercise on the BBC version yesterday. Giving Trump every state that he was in with a sniff of he got to 268 (I assumed he did not have a sniff of Penn). It is now extremely difficult to find a credible way to 270 for Trump.

619 · October 2016

foxinsoxuk said:

Pulpstar said:

paulbarker said:
On Topic. This is a good result for The Libdems before the campaign has started. With 5 weeks to go The LDs are up 10% already. The classic 3rd Party squeeze is off to a good start before they have even begun to be hit by the "Labour cant win here" leaflets. In fact The LDs havent completed delivery of the introductory leaflet yet.
UKIP & Leave.UKs backing of Goldsmith completely undermines his "this is not about Brexit" line. Goldsmith is the joint Tory/UKIP candidate hiding behind an Independent mask.
I wonder if this will be the last Poll The Standard publishes ?
UKIP not standing is good for Zac even though it is not great publicity, as he'll get all the UKIP votes. Its as simple as that really.
Really?

While he is a Leaver, kippers are not normally so keen on the whole Global Warmist posh-boy schtick.

Kippers? In Richmond???

SquareRoot · October 2016

Who the heck are BMG, I have never heard of them?

PlatoSaid · October 2016

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
She has philly in her pocket, which will always outvote the suburbs.

Anyway, if PA is a toss up, so is Texas

May I recommend this twitter account to you on Philly Ward 19?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCUFWEUdmc8#action=share

Jobabob · October 2016

matt said:

Jobabob said:
Can the PB Trumptons make their forecasts please?

Rather than Nudge Nudge Wink Wink, let us know what you think the result of the election will be.

For reasons of transparency. I am long on Trump but think Hillary will win narrowly, chiefly due to overperforming in the Rockies.

I think Trump will carry FL and OH.
Do the rampers risk money?

I very much doubt it.

Barnesian · October 2016

GeoffM said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that Mike is right to say that the Evening Standard was overwhelmingly on Zac's side in the mayoral race. They were actually quite even-handed, running some articles which were very critical of each candidate, as well as some puff-pieces for each candidate.

More important to this race is the fact that Zac is going all-out to make it a referendum on Heathrow. If he's sensible, and I think he is, he'll avoid discussion of anything else. From the Standard article:

In his first interview since his failed mayoral bid, he revealed his plans for a street-by-street battle to return him to Westminster. “I hope it’s a really big mandate because I do not want a diluted message for Heathrow,” he said.

“I want the Government and Heathrow to be under no illusion that people really feel very strongly about this.”
I still don't understand why the people of Richmond feel so strongly against having fewer planes flying over their houses!
Because they don't believe it.
Do they believe this reasonably or unreasonably? Is it true?

I genuinely don't know and I would be grateful for clarification.

Heathrow have put out material on flight paths to support their case. The question is do you believe it will be objective and evidenced based, or possibly slightly slanted to support their case.

Heathrow have a great PR operation. They swapped their head of PR with the Number 10 head of news. So the former Number 10 head of news is handling Heathrow PR, and the former head of Heathrow PR is the new Director of Communications at the Department of Transport. Very cosy eh?

No doubt it will be one of the issues raised in the judicial review of fair process.

http://www.prweek.com/article/1364870/former-number-10-head-news-vickie-sheriff-becomes-heathrow-comms-chief

http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh

EDIT I got this info from Zac.

Sandpit · October 2016

Patrick said:
This is very funny and horribly true:
https://life.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/a-handy-guide-to-left-wing-people-for-the-under-10s/

Very good!

Jobabob · October 2016

PlatoSaid said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:

HYUFD said:

619 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/27/fearful-and-angry-trump-supporters-brace-for-the-worst-a-crushing-defeat/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&utm_term=.e87c912a6ef0

'CLINTON HOLDS BIG EDGE IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Sabato’s Crystal Ball has shifted its ratings once again, and the end result is this: Clinton has 272 electoral college votes if you only count the states she is likely to win, i.e, only states rated “Likely Democratic.” That means she can win the presidency without any states that are classified as “Lean Democratic” or “Toss Up.”

That map looks like this: as long as Clinton holds Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Hampshire (all rated “Likely Dem” now), and holds Wisconsin (also “Likely Dem”), she wins, even if Trump takes Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada.'
RCP now moved Pennsylvania to 'toss up' status
Different polling accumulators.

Also, Clinton with a consistent average lead of 5 points is clearly not a 'toss up'
It is if the white working class in small town and rural Pennsylvania turn out in big numbers, same in New Hampshire
She has philly in her pocket, which will always outvote the suburbs.

Anyway, if PA is a toss up, so is Texas
May I recommend this twitter account to you on Philly Ward 19?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCUFWEUdmc8#action=share

WHAT IS YOUR ELECTION FORECAST?

HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU GOT ON IT?

AT WHAT ODDS?

Dadge · October 2016

Indigo said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:
I have no idea what Hillary Clinton stands for - other than Make Hillary Very Rich.

Imagine the unthinkable. Losing to Donald Trump. To DONALD TRUMP! I can't think of a bigger humiliation dished out by democracy.
I wouldn't envy her if she loses. All the anger about stitching up the nomination will boil over and she'll move from being hated by Republicans to hated by everyone.
Sanders or Warren would be odds on to face Trump in 2020 if she loses, centrist Dems would face the fate of Blairites in Labour.
Sanders would easily beat Trump, so probably would Warren, they would have a much tough job against Pence on a neo-Trumper platform (mad as hell, but with less stupidity and misogyny)

Crikey there's a lot of fantasists on here atm. Some kind of disinfo or ramping campaign going on? 1. Sanders will not be facing anybody in 2020. He'l be nearly 100 years of age. 2. Warren maybe, but like Sanders this year, she'll face tough primary opposition from whoever the centrist candidate is. 3. Sanders would not easily beat Trump, cf. J Corbyn. 4. Although I agree that there has to be at least an even-money chance that one or two armed nutters will take a potshot at Hillary during the next 4 years, given how toxic the race has been, it's still likely that she'll be the candidate in 2020. What are the current odds on her winning in 2020?

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Zac ahead 56%-29% in first Richmond poll and seems to be getti

Comments