If this was a UK election we'd be assuming it was paid-for campaign astroturfing.
It's only because most of us don't have a vote here that we're assuming its not. It could still be that PB.com was included on his website commenting list by the HRC team by accident.
On topic I said at the time of the London Mayoralty election that I could not have brought myself to vote for Zac whose campaign was despicable. You can argue whether that was his fault or not but his name was on the ticket.
I certainly would not be troubling myself to vote for this self indulgent nonsense about Heathrow. If I, as an ultra wet Brexiteer Tory, could not bring myself to vote for this man he may just find this a bit harder than it looks.
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.
I will probably put a tenner on Trump, at 5-1 little to lose, small chance of a good profit. Little profit to be made on Hillary at her odds even if she wins
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.
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 vodoo poll question was asked in context of a national vote. "Do you think Brexit is more important to the UK than Heathrow".
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?
Or don't the Lib Dems support Zacs position on Heathrow?
Brand Zac in Richmond is not tarnished and whilst I expect his majority to be halved it will still be a comfortable win. The burghers of Richmond are a cerebal lot and wont take kindly to the hordes of Orangeites descending on their community over the next 5 weeks.
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.
I wonder how big a group there is that would never vote for Zac because he was a Tory. BUT as someone who on a point of principle has stood down as a Tory and is now fighting as an Independent, on a platform that is very much a concern they share - might they now consider giving him their vote?
The LibDems are assuming they will hoover up all these folk. I'm not so sure....
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
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?
Pardon? Can't win somewhere with an enormous majority against them in short campaign. "Perfectly entitled to ask" What on earth are you talking about?
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.
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 vodoo poll question was asked in context of a national vote. "Do you think Brexit is more important to the UK than Heathrow".
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?
Pardon? Can't win somewhere with an enormous majority against them in short campaign. "Perfectly entitled to ask" What on earth are you talking about?
'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
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.
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?
Yes which makes the whole by election campaign he wants to run pointless now
There are the better part of five weeks to go before the by election so this early poll doesn't come as a huge surprise.
I said on Tuesday the LDs wouldn't win Richmond Park in a straight fight with Zac and that is still my belief. It's a win-win for the Conservatives and May.
IF Zac wins, he will be re-admitted to the Conservative fold after a decent interval - probably in time to be the Official Conservative candidate at the 2020 GE while it will be deemed to be a set back to the fight back and a personal rebuff for Farron (which it wouldn't be).
IF the LDs win, Goldsmith will be out of politics and an official pro-LHR3 candidate can be selected for the seat for 2020. In any case, given the strength of the Conservative position nationally and the possibility of further gains from Labour, it probably wouldn't matter if the LDs held Richmond. It won't stop LHR3 even if the LDs recapture the Borough in 2018.
All the risk is with the LDs and Goldsmith - by doing nothing, May wins both ways. It's called politics and inevitably one day it won't be so favourable for the Prime Minister.
If this was a UK election we'd be assuming it was paid-for campaign astroturfing.
It's only because most of us don't have a vote here that we're assuming its not. It could still be that PB.com was included on his website commenting list by the HRC team by accident.
Despair trolling here is thankfully pretty low. Since Scott Adams called out #HillBullies that's dropped right off too across any pro-Trump accounts.
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
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)
Against an incumbent president Trump more difficult
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.
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 vodoo poll question was asked in context of a national vote. "Do you think Brexit is more important to the UK than Heathrow".
Not so. The question was "what matters most to voters here". People were asked "What matters most to you?" UK didn't come into it. Watch for yourself.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
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?
Yes May has turned a potential disaster for her into a potential disaster for the LDs here
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
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?
Well quite. This stuff about being assassinated PDQ was also said regularly and with much confidence about Obama –––– and several other US presidents and presidential candidates.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
Pennsylvania or NH are probably the key states for him, high turnout in rural and small town areas of both states vital
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
'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?
No, a very narrow Hillary win
Thanks for the response, Hyufd.
I suspect waiting for Plato's response will be akin to waiting for Godot.
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.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
Pennsylvania or NH are probably the key states for him, high turnout in rural and small town areas of both states vital
Potentially Wisconsin or Michigan too, could be dark horse polling misses.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
Pennsylvania or NH are probably the key states for him, high turnout in rural and small town areas of both states vital
Potentially Wisconsin or Michigan too, could be dark horse polling misses.
Minnesota safely Dem.
Potentially though Minnesota has not voted GOP since 1972
'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?
No, a very narrow Hillary win
Thanks for the response, Hyufd.
I suspect waiting for Plato's response will be akin to waiting for Godot.
Thankyou though would be interesting to see Plato's thoughts too
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?
2008 started on a Monday like this year, 2012 is an outlier because of the vote restrictions; this year is closer to 2008. In the first 4 days of the early vote in 2008 the Dems had ~40000 vote leads each day in-person.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
There aren't 1% more registered republicans than Dems in the USA.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
So you've read the copious links on party identification you were given and decided they were nonsense then?
Sorry to mention assassination again - but does anyone know what would happen if a candidate croaks once postal voting has already started?
Kaine or Pence would quickly head in from 1000.0 on Betfair would be my guess.
But if votes are already cast for a dead candidate then the election is surely void? Don't they have to start again? Or does the VP candidate legally assume the full candidacy? Would make hanging chads look like a breeze.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
The current attitude of the Left in the US and whole BLM/safe space blah blah stuff is out of any norm I can recall.
It's angry and violent - and the Rightists are sick of it - and responding. Reagan was shot in much less hostile times.
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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
Pennsylvania or NH are probably the key states for him, high turnout in rural and small town areas of both states vital
For a win yes. But he also has to successfully play defence in OH, NC, Col, Tx, Georgia (I mean Georgia!!) Nv, Fl, Az and Iowa.
I think that State polling is sometimes overvalued and that national polling is more important (even although pollsters in the US frequently use appallingly low samples for national polling) because so many of these States will rise and fall together but it is a hell of an ask. Especially for a campaign that seems to be putting so little effort into GOTV.
Oh I should add that if Trump loses this year the odds of him standing in 2020 must be <5%. I certainly can't see him being the GOP nominee again. <blockquote class="UserQuote">
'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
Despite Philadelphia, PA is gradually going Republican and it and MI were Trump's best targets to overturn the deficit from 2012, assuming that he takes Ohio. I think the GOP have been working hard there and he might still pull it off (if all the polls are slightly out), though I doubt it.
Oh I should add that if Trump loses this year the odds of him standing in 2020 must be <5%. I certainly can't see him being the GOP nominee again. <blockquote class="UserQuote">
'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
Despite Philadelphia, PA is gradually going Republican and it and MI were Trump's best targets to overturn the deficit from 2012, assuming that he takes Ohio. I think the GOP have been working hard there and he might still pull it off (if all the polls are slightly out), though I doubt it.
Anyone with a large naked position on either side of the US election is a braver man or woman than I am at this point.
That's my take too. In a rational world, no way does Donald Trump - with his very obvious personality failings - get to be remotely competitive. And yet he is.
In a rational world, no way does Hillary Clinton - with her contempt for transparency and huge voter issues with trust - get to be remotely competitive. And yet she is.
'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
And Trump is not doing well with a key suburban demographic: suburban women. Trump may siphon some WWC voters from Clinton in the "Pennsyltucky" centre of the state, but the polling evidence from other rust-belt states suggests he's made ground, but not enough to close the deal with them. In most recent Presidential elections in PA, Philly and Pittsburgh outvote the suburbs and centre. This year Trump might do very well in the centre but will be outvoted by Philly, Pittsburgh and the suburbs.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
The current attitude of the Left in the US and whole BLM/safe space blah blah stuff is out of any norm I can recall.
It's angry and violent - and the Rightists are sick of it - and responding. Reagan was shot in much less hostile times.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
So you've read the copious links on party identification you were given and decided they were nonsense then?
You should have sent it to wikileaks first, so they could tweet about it.
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
How many times does it need to be explained to you why this is?
'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?
No, a very narrow Hillary win
Thanks for the response, Hyufd.
I suspect waiting for Plato's response will be akin to waiting for Godot.
Thankyou though would be interesting to see Plato's thoughts too
'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.
Add in NH he does it too, Dubya won it in 2000 and Trump won the primary unlike Hillary
At the moment RCP are showing Clinton +6.5% in NH. That's a lot. But it is going to take that sort of turnaround somewhere unexpected for him to make it. I don't think he will.
And it's important to look at the numbers behind it. Many polls are using D8+ samples. Given the GOP primary voting turnout - that's nonsense. R1+ or more is more likely.
So you've read the copious links on party identification you were given and decided they were nonsense then?
It was just WTF propaganda from the MSM and was boring/irrelevant.
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
2pm on a Friday, an interesting time to quit anything. What's in he papers tomorrow, one gets the feeling that Guido's got a file of stuff on Tonge he's been waiting to reveal?
Pretty sure it will get overturned. Uber drivers drive as much or as little as they like. If they choose 5 hours a week (one every evening say) then they can't realistically be offered the full panopoly of support a permanent employee gets. Or they can but we then legislate to make these pro-rata. Otherwise I'll become an Uber driver and elect to work one hour a year.
In Georgia, it's a statistical tie - for HRC to capture Georgia wouldn't be as surprising as Obama's win in Indiana in 2008 but it would effectively cancel out Trump winning in OH.
Two conflicting polls from Missouri where Romney won by just under 10 points in 2012. The Remington Research poll put Trump 11 points up but the St Louis Despatch poll this morning gives Trump a 5 point lead at 47-42.
I'm not quite sure that puts Missouri in play as it were - my current forecast is 310-228.
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
The current attitude of the Left in the US and whole BLM/safe space blah blah stuff is out of any norm I can recall.
It's angry and violent - and the Rightists are sick of it - and responding. Reagan was shot in much less hostile times.
He hasn't actually hurt anyone or destriyed property - which happened to a Republican office recently. (Not to mention attacks on Trump supporters at rallies).
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
The current attitude of the Left in the US and whole BLM/safe space blah blah stuff is out of any norm I can recall.
It's angry and violent - and the Rightists are sick of it - and responding. Reagan was shot in much less hostile times.
He hasn't actually hurt anyone or destriyed property - which happened to a Republican office recently. (Not to mention attacks on Trump supporters at rallies).
And the numerous protestors beaten up at Trump rallies?
And the open threats reported from Trump supporters to shoot Hilary, as well as T-shirts e.t.c at rallies?
It's fair to say Trump supporters are openly violent and openly threatening.
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.
The CNN article does make it clear that the Florida comparison is with 2008, not 2012.
But are you sure about that 580,000 figure for the Democrat lead for in-person early voting in 2008? This Time article suggests it was a 9% lead out of 2.6m votes, which would be more like 230,000: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/81541/
In Georgia, it's a statistical tie - for HRC to capture Georgia wouldn't be as surprising as Obama's win in Indiana in 2008 but it would effectively cancel out Trump winning in OH.
Two conflicting polls from Missouri where Romney won by just under 10 points in 2012. The Remington Research poll put Trump 11 points up but the St Louis Despatch poll this morning gives Trump a 5 point lead at 47-42.
I'm not quite sure that puts Missouri in play as it were - my current forecast is 310-228.
As hilarious as that would be, it would be unlikely I think
Well apparently Tom Watson has said she's welcome to join, though that was during her suspension. It must be one of those safe spaces for anti-Semitism the recent Parliamentary Select Committee wrote about.
2pm on a Friday, an interesting time to quit anything. What's in he papers tomorrow, one gets the feeling that Guido's got a file of stuff on Tonge he's been waiting to reveal?
There's already quite a lot of information out there about her: her links with Hamas etc. All very Corbynite. A poison which has entered British politics and which it will take a devil of a job to remove.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
Trump has to have committed a wrong in public office before the HoR could decide to commence the impeachment. (The senate as I understand it do the actual impeachment)
I think it's a fair ruling. Deliveroo are probably fucked though.
But lots of drivers actively like the Uber employment model (and presumably the same goes for other gig economy companies). I know, because I take Ubers all the time, and ask the drivers how they feel.
Ubers can be incredibly cheap and they open up London and other cities to people who can't afford traditional taxis, but could really use them - single mums, poor people on estate, the old. Yes it stuffs black cabs, which is sad, but I got a black cab yesterday and the window sticker said "we take contactless payments" but it turned out the driver had a contactless system... which took ten minutes to programme. So I paid cash. Black cabs have dinosaured themselves out of business.
I like Uber. I love Uber. Uber Uber Alles.
Agree with all that. Uber is excellent and black cabs have been hideously overpriced for years. Too few even today take cards, which makes paying a pain (fill in receipt, claim back, wait, yawn) when on expenses –– and it's not possible to tell whether they take cards or not before they stop. So, despite the fact that I could expense a black cab, I very often take Uber – it's just easier.
I think it's a fair ruling. Deliveroo are probably fucked though.
But lots of drivers actively like the Uber employment model (and presumably the same goes for other gig economy companies). I know, because I take Ubers all the time, and ask the drivers how they feel.
Ubers can be incredibly cheap and they open up London and other cities to people who can't afford traditional taxis, but could really use them - single mums, poor people on estate, the old. Yes it stuffs black cabs, which is sad, but I got a black cab yesterday and the window sticker said "we take contactless payments" but it turned out the driver had a contactless system... which took ten minutes to programme. So I paid cash. Black cabs have dinosaured themselves out of business.
I like Uber. I love Uber. Uber Uber Alles.
For me a bigger problem with Uber is that black cabs have higher legal standards eg for disabled access. As someone with a disability (selfishly) but also from a social point of view, I wouldn't want to see Uber destroy the black cab industry for that reason alone.
But I'm not so sure about treating their drivers as employees. While I do wonder where the "gig economy" is going, in terms of worker protection, it didn't strike me that Uber drivers really fall into what is commonly understood as "employment".
Not sure Goldsmith quite understands how this works. The vote doesn't matter. If he wins, it doesn't change anything. If he loses, it doesn't change anything.
David Herdson said 'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
I think it's a fair ruling. Deliveroo are probably fucked though.
But lots of drivers actively like the Uber employment model (and presumably the same goes for other gig economy companies). I know, because I take Ubers all the time, and ask the drivers how they feel.
Ubers can be incredibly cheap and they open up London and other cities to people who can't afford traditional taxis, but could really use them - single mums, poor people on estate, the old. Yes it stuffs black cabs, which is sad, but I got a black cab yesterday and the window sticker said "we take contactless payments" but it turned out the driver had a contactless system... which took ten minutes to programme. So I paid cash. Black cabs have dinosaured themselves out of business.
I like Uber. I love Uber. Uber Uber Alles.
Then get a normal minicab -- cheaper and often more convenient than black cabs. No need for Uber at all. I get five or six a week. At least in London, drivers are properly licensed and their cars less than five or six years old -- the minicab trade is a lot better than it used to be a couple of decades back.
Oddly, there are more Mercedes than you'd expect used as cabs, and you have to wonder about the long term affect on their brand image but I dare say their quality and technology leads will see them through.
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
There was a ruling against the latter in New York earlier in the week. It had grown to such an extent that it was causing a housing shortage as investors were basically running unlicensed hotels with hundreds of rooms across the city not paying tourist taxes. Also issues with people subletting rent-controlled flats and problems with noise in nicer areas.
Like many of these things, it's okay on a small scale but it's quickly grown out of hand and they have become victims of their own success. Uber are a taxi company, whether they like to think they are or not.
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
Or semi-professional ebayers?
Something which has changed a lot in the recent self-employment boom is people using an online platform to perform a service, or even simply to advertise a service.
Quite how many of these people become redefined as "employees" of the service is going to be interesting.
In olden days, it never crossed anybody's minds that plumbers and electricians and boiler installers would be classified as employees of Yellow Pages. Obviously the new platforms have a degree of control over the associated workers that Yellow Pages didn't, but how much control is enough?
Europhilia knows no bounds... Tony Blair calls for a second referendum to reverse Brexit 'catastrophe', calls on Remainers to mobilise.
tbh as someone who did not vote Remain, I'd not regard it as a constitutional outrage if there were a second referendum on some sort of final Brexit package.
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
There was a ruling against the latter in New York earlier in the week. It had grown to such an extent that it was causing a housing shortage as investors were basically running unlicensed hotels with hundreds of rooms across the city not paying tourist taxes. Also issues with people subletting rent-controlled flats and problems with noise in nicer areas.
Like many of these things, it's okay on a small scale but it's quickly grown out of hand and they have become victims of their own success. Uber are a taxi company, whether they like to think they are or not.
It's a difficult one. If Uber are a taxi company then Just Eat are a takeaway giant.
I think the Uber ruling might even have implications for AirBnB.
Or semi-professional ebayers?
Something which has changed a lot in the recent self-employment boom is people using an online platform to perform a service, or even simply to advertise a service.
Quite how many of these people become redefined as "employees" of the service is going to be interesting.
In olden days, it never crossed anybody's minds that plumbers and electricians and boiler installers would be classified as employees of Yellow Pages. Obviously the new platforms have a degree of control over the associated workers that Yellow Pages didn't, but how much control is enough?
How does they money change hands? With Uber and AirBnB, the customer pays the company, who in turn pay the provider of the service. That's probably the key differentiator.
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.
There has also been at least one assassination attempt on Trump too
I'm really concerned at what happens whomever wins. This is a security nightmare for either side.
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
Indeed but I doubt they will get assassinated, Nixon survived and he was loathed too by many, impeachment is probably more likely as it was for him
Trump has to have committed a wrong in public office before the HoR could decide to commence the impeachment. (The senate as I understand it do the actual impeachment)
Impeachment is for 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. It's for the House to interpret that phrase when deciding whether to impeach, and the constitution doesn't specifically mention 'in office' (rightly so, in my mind, as that would exclude election offenses from consideration).
Were Trump to be elected and were he to display in office the behaviour and attitude he's shown on the campaign trail, he'd be an impeachment waiting to happen.
Comments
It's only because most of us don't have a vote here that we're assuming its not. It could still be that PB.com was included on his website commenting list by the HRC team by accident.
I certainly would not be troubling myself to vote for this self indulgent nonsense about Heathrow. If I, as an ultra wet Brexiteer Tory, could not bring myself to vote for this man he may just find this a bit harder than it looks.
Brand Zac in Richmond is not tarnished and whilst I expect his majority to be halved it will still be a comfortable win.
The burghers of Richmond are a cerebal lot and wont take kindly to the hordes of Orangeites descending on their community over the next 5 weeks.
The LibDems are assuming they will hoover up all these folk. I'm not so sure....
Everyone is going to have an opinion and a PR dept, as you rightly say, but hopefully the truth is out there somewhere.
There are the better part of five weeks to go before the by election so this early poll doesn't come as a huge surprise.
I said on Tuesday the LDs wouldn't win Richmond Park in a straight fight with Zac and that is still my belief. It's a win-win for the Conservatives and May.
IF Zac wins, he will be re-admitted to the Conservative fold after a decent interval - probably in time to be the Official Conservative candidate at the 2020 GE while it will be deemed to be a set back to the fight back and a personal rebuff for Farron (which it wouldn't be).
IF the LDs win, Goldsmith will be out of politics and an official pro-LHR3 candidate can be selected for the seat for 2020. In any case, given the strength of the Conservative position nationally and the possibility of further gains from Labour, it probably wouldn't matter if the LDs held Richmond. It won't stop LHR3 even if the LDs recapture the Borough in 2018.
All the risk is with the LDs and Goldsmith - by doing nothing, May wins both ways. It's called politics and inevitably one day it won't be so favourable for the Prime Minister.
Clinton Bands 538 Huff NYT ======================================== Under 250 12.91% 0.57% 4.35% 250-259 2.87% 0.57% 1.76% 260-269 3.34% 0.91% 2.29% 270-279 4.99% 3.21% 3.89% 280-289 4.06% 2.29% 3.42% 290-299 4.50% 3.87% 4.87% 300-309 5.03% 6.53% 5.97% 310-319 5.36% 7.94% 6.30% 320-329 6.30% 11.98% 10.73% 330-339 5.82% 9.38% 6.97% 340-349 6.72% 18.78% 11.47% 350-359 7.59% 16.45% 9.01% 360-369 6.58% 5.93% 6.70% 370-379 5.48% 4.70% 5.61% 380-389 3.78% 2.40% 4.07% 390-399 2.76% 1.78% 2.78% 400 or over 11.91% 2.72% 9.82% ======================================== Prob Clinton win 80.88% 97.95% 91.60% Implied fair value for spreads markets: Clinton ECVs 325.9 337.0 336.6 Clinton 270-up 63.9 67.3 69.0 Clinton 300-up 41.8 39.3 43.3 Clinton 330-up 24.0 16.1 22.5 Trump 270-up 7.8 0.3 2.4 Trump 300-up 3.5 0.0 0.8 Trump 330-up 1.4 0.0 0.2'Highly unlikely if Labour isn't going to really try. Again.
But Lab has finished 2nd in four of the last six GEs in Richmond Park or its direct predecessors, including the last one, so there's no reason they shouldn't give it a go. '
That is not true!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37791592
Re Trump win? I'm beginning to think he could edge it. The anecdotage is significant.
https://mobile.twitter.com/tylerculberson/status/791984913167835141
I suspect waiting for Plato's response will be akin to waiting for Godot.
Minnesota safely Dem.
Clinton 44 .. Trump 41
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct28
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37802386
I'm all even whatever happens.
~80-90% Clinton.
~10-20% Trump.
Perhaps there will be a polling error on the scale of reagan '80?
I'm not betting on it.
Current POTUS odds are fair, IMO. I don't see value.
It's angry and violent - and the Rightists are sick of it - and responding. Reagan was shot in much less hostile times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Jid5uRFo4
I think that State polling is sometimes overvalued and that national polling is more important (even although pollsters in the US frequently use appallingly low samples for national polling) because so many of these States will rise and fall together but it is a hell of an ask. Especially for a campaign that seems to be putting so little effort into GOTV.
Clinton 46 .. Trump 39
http://cnu.edu/cpp/pdf/oct 28 2016 report-final.pdf
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 1988Despite Philadelphia, PA is gradually going Republican and it and MI were Trump's best targets to overturn the deficit from 2012, assuming that he takes Ohio. I think the GOP have been working hard there and he might still pull it off (if all the polls are slightly out), though I doubt it.
Comparing PA with TX is silly.
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 1988Despite Philadelphia, PA is gradually going Republican and it and MI were Trump's best targets to overturn the deficit from 2012, assuming that he takes Ohio. I think the GOP have been working hard there and he might still pull it off (if all the polls are slightly out), though I doubt it.
Comparing PA with TX is silly.
In a rational world, no way does Hillary Clinton - with her contempt for transparency and huge voter issues with trust - get to be remotely competitive. And yet she is.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/26/joe-walsh-musket-tweet/92799286/
Well quite ....
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/pence-utah-unique-situation-230438
Akin Gump has joined other US firms in pegging its UK lawyers' salaries to the dollar, handing them fresh pay rises.
In June they were given raises which were intended to match their salaries to the latest pay levels in the US. Newly qualified lawyers were put on £127,000, which was then the equivalent of the $180,000 paid to NQs in the States. But that was before the EU referendum and the nosediving pound, which has devalued £127k to the point where it is only worth $155,600.
So Akin Gump has followed in the footsteps of fellow US firm Kirkland & Ellis, and will now pay its junior lawyers according to fluctuating exchange rates. Every quarter their salaries will be re-pegged against the dollar, which at the current rate would see an NQ receiving a staggering £146,800.
http://www.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/4839/fromTab/36/currentIndex/1/Default.aspx
Amusing to think McCain won Utah by nearly 30% in 2008 in a losing national campaign
A 2 point shift toward Trump in a day https://t.co/pZEynFiWiG
Falsinator
Latest ABC / WaPo tracking poll has Hillary only +4 with a D+9 sample. SHE IS TOAST: https://t.co/luE0FDUH4m @mitchellvii https://t.co/klorrDD2wQ
https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/ps/ps10272016_S397fgbw.pdf/
In Georgia, it's a statistical tie - for HRC to capture Georgia wouldn't be as surprising as Obama's win in Indiana in 2008 but it would effectively cancel out Trump winning in OH.
Two conflicting polls from Missouri where Romney won by just under 10 points in 2012. The Remington Research poll put Trump 11 points up but the St Louis Despatch poll this morning gives Trump a 5 point lead at 47-42.
I'm not quite sure that puts Missouri in play as it were - my current forecast is 310-228.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn present in the Commons for the adjournment debate on testing regimes for chronic urinary tract infections
And the open threats reported from Trump supporters to shoot Hilary, as well as T-shirts e.t.c at rallies?
It's fair to say Trump supporters are openly violent and openly threatening.
But are you sure about that 580,000 figure for the Democrat lead for in-person early voting in 2008? This Time article suggests it was a 9% lead out of 2.6m votes, which would be more like 230,000:
http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/81541/
Labour really are a disgrace.
But I'm not so sure about treating their drivers as employees. While I do wonder where the "gig economy" is going, in terms of worker protection, it didn't strike me that Uber drivers really fall into what is commonly understood as "employment".
Not sure Goldsmith quite understands how this works. The vote doesn't matter. If he wins, it doesn't change anything. If he loses, it doesn't change anything.
F1: P1 starts in just over an hour.
There was a one point move away from Trump in the IBD/TIPP tracker .... does that make Trump half a slice of toast?
http://www.sltrib.com/home/4506207-155/who-is-evan-mcmullin-an-unorthodox
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 21 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails21 #HillaryClinton https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm https://t.co/kkdyFXmTLD
Tony Blair calls for a second referendum to reverse Brexit 'catastrophe', calls on Remainers to mobilise.
Oddly, there are more Mercedes than you'd expect used as cabs, and you have to wonder about the long term affect on their brand image but I dare say their quality and technology leads will see them through.
Like many of these things, it's okay on a small scale but it's quickly grown out of hand and they have become victims of their own success. Uber are a taxi company, whether they like to think they are or not.
Quite how many of these people become redefined as "employees" of the service is going to be interesting.
In olden days, it never crossed anybody's minds that plumbers and electricians and boiler installers would be classified as employees of Yellow Pages. Obviously the new platforms have a degree of control over the associated workers that Yellow Pages didn't, but how much control is enough?
https://youtu.be/qUjXD-tFink
Were Trump to be elected and were he to display in office the behaviour and attitude he's shown on the campaign trail, he'd be an impeachment waiting to happen.