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

First like Remain in the 1975 referendum

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

Zac getting the backing of the Standard...

Does that count for much?

And a good afternoon to all.

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..

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.

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?

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%.

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

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...)

timmo said:

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

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

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...!

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.

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

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

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.”

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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 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

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.

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?'

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

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 ?

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 ?

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

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?

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.

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/

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?