politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this analysis and trend of early voters is right then Clint
Comments
-
Trump has got this far because of the underlying popularity of his positions. If the election was just based on policy he would win easily.SouthamObserver said:
My vantage point shows me that Hillary has remained ahead of Trump because she is slightly less hated than he is. If that changes - and that looks like it could now happen - Trump will win. I am sure that some blue collar workers are voting Trump for positive reasons, just as I am sure that some people are voting for Hillary for positive reasons. But dislike is clearly the motivating factor for most.MaxPB said:
I think that's your vantage point. From the blue collar Dems vantage point it's voting to make America great again after years of decline in earnings and living standards, its voting for a President who says he won't be bullied on the world stage like Obama has been on numerous occasions. Trump comes with a lot of baggage, but there are a lot of people in America who are making a positive choice when they vote for Trump. You or I may not see those positives as important enough vs is negatives.SouthamObserver said:
I am afraid I disagree. What I see is a lot of Hillary hate. Just as I see as lot of Trump hate on the other side. There is a reason why the two candidates spend almost all their time attacking each other. It's how they get their votes.MaxPB said:
Positive in a sense of voting for a candidate and his or her ideas vs voting against the other candidate. You may not like the idea of blue collar Dems wanting what Trump is offering, but it is what's happening.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure it is that much of a positive choice. The Trump vote is anti almost everything and clearly detests Hillary. He is getting the nihilistic vote.MaxPB said:
The question is whether blue collar Dems or GOP establishment voters are more numerous. I think another factor is that GOP establishment voters are making a negative choice while blue collar Dems are making a positive choice, the enthusiasm levels might have an effect, especially in light of the latest email leaks.rcs1000 said:
But, of course, Hillary is getting Republicans (like @Charles' in-laws) that a Democrat normally wouldn't.williamglenn said:See the Florida poll on the previous thread. If Trump is getting a third of some demographics of registered Democrats you can throw these projections in the bin.
0 -
I believe that the person who was 'suckerpunched' (by an 80 year old with a catheter) is now under investigation.619 said:
its nit ejecting people. Its people being suckerpunched in the face.GeoffM said:
Do you not see the difference between ejecting people who have gone to an opponent's event solely to disrupt it, and attacking an old woman on a public street for trying to stop an act of vandalism?SouthamObserver said:
Hmmm- protestors have been attacked and abused at Trump events.weejonnie said:
The difference of course is that Hillary hate is verbal - but Trump hate includes deliberate obstruction of people going to his speeches and kicking a defenceless black woman (Where is Hillary defending her BTW - I thought she was big in supporting women and minorities?) for protecting Trump's star.SouthamObserver said:
I am afraid I disagree. What I see is a lot of Hillary hate. Just as I see as lot of Trump hate on the other side. There is a reason why the two candidates spend almost all their time attacking each other. It's how they get their votes.MaxPB said:
Positive in a sense of voting for a candidate and his or her ideas vs voting against the other candidate. You may not like the idea of blue collar Dems wanting what Trump is offering, but it is what's happening.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure it is that much of a positive choice. The Trump vote is anti almost everything and clearly detests Hillary. He is getting the nihilistic vote.MaxPB said:
The question is whether blue collar Dems or GOP establishment voters are more numerous. I think another factor is that GOP establishment voters are making a negative choice while blue collar Dems are making a positive choice, the enthusiasm levels might have an effect, especially in light of the latest email leaks.rcs1000 said:
But, of course, Hillary is getting Republicans (like @Charles' in-laws) that a Democrat normally wouldn't.williamglenn said:See the Florida poll on the previous thread. If Trump is getting a third of some demographics of registered Democrats you can throw these projections in the bin.
0 -
If I turned up at a Democrat rally intending to disrupt it and cause trouble I wouldn't be surprised if that happened to me.619 said:
its nit ejecting people. Its people being suckerpunched in the face.GeoffM said:
Do you not see the difference between ejecting people who have gone to an opponent's event solely to disrupt it, and attacking an old woman on a public street for trying to stop an act of vandalism?SouthamObserver said:
Hmmm- protestors have been attacked and abused at Trump events.weejonnie said:
The difference of course is that Hillary hate is verbal - but Trump hate includes deliberate obstruction of people going to his speeches and kicking a defenceless black woman (Where is Hillary defending her BTW - I thought she was big in supporting women and minorities?) for protecting Trump's star.SouthamObserver said:
I am afraid I disagree. What I see is a lot of Hillary hate. Just as I see as lot of Trump hate on the other side. There is a reason why the two candidates spend almost all their time attacking each other. It's how they get their votes.MaxPB said:
Positive in a sense of voting for a candidate and his or her ideas vs voting against the other candidate. You may not like the idea of blue collar Dems wanting what Trump is offering, but it is what's happening.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure it is that much of a positive choice. The Trump vote is anti almost everything and clearly detests Hillary. He is getting the nihilistic vote.MaxPB said:
The question is whether blue collar Dems or GOP establishment voters are more numerous. I think another factor is that GOP establishment voters are making a negative choice while blue collar Dems are making a positive choice, the enthusiasm levels might have an effect, especially in light of the latest email leaks.rcs1000 said:
But, of course, Hillary is getting Republicans (like @Charles' in-laws) that a Democrat normally wouldn't.williamglenn said:See the Florida poll on the previous thread. If Trump is getting a third of some demographics of registered Democrats you can throw these projections in the bin.
0 -
Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.0
-
As the Klan were white Democats anyway, that was just his weekend clothes and he turned the wrong corner on his way to a regular meeting.MonikerDiCanio said:
I remember a white Democrat dressed as a Klansman getting flattened by an AA Trump supporter. I remember that.SouthamObserver said:
Hmmm- protestors have been attacked and abused at Trump events.weejonnie said:
The difference of course is that Hillary hate is verbal - but Trump hate includes deliberate obstruction of people going to his speeches and kicking a defenceless black woman (Where is Hillary defending her BTW - I thought she was big in supporting women and minorities?) for protecting Trump's star.SouthamObserver said:
I am afraid I disagree. What I see is a lot of Hillary hate. Just as I see as lot of Trump hate on the other side. There is a reason why the two candidates spend almost all their time attacking each other. It's how they get their votes.MaxPB said:
Positive in a sense of voting for a candidate and his or her ideas vs voting against the other candidate. You may not like the idea of blue collar Dems wanting what Trump is offering, but it is what's happening.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure it is that much of a positive choice. The Trump vote is anti almost everything and clearly detests Hillary. He is getting the nihilistic vote.MaxPB said:
The question is whether blue collar Dems or GOP establishment voters are more numerous. I think another factor is that GOP establishment voters are making a negative choice while blue collar Dems are making a positive choice, the enthusiasm levels might have an effect, especially in light of the latest email leaks.rcs1000 said:
But, of course, Hillary is getting Republicans (like @Charles' in-laws) that a Democrat normally wouldn't.williamglenn said:See the Florida poll on the previous thread. If Trump is getting a third of some demographics of registered Democrats you can throw these projections in the bin.
0 -
Interestingly, from a betting perspective, SkyBet's favourite 30 Democratic ECV band continues to be 330 - 359 at decimal odds of 3.0, followed by the 300 - 329 band on offer at 4.33, with their 360- 389 surprisingly not far behind on 5.0
DYOR.0 -
But it's not and so he has been mostly behind from the get-go. He will get most of his votes from Republicans who always vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, just as Hillary will get most of her votes from Democrats who vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is. The key bit is the bit in the middle. Some of that will be voting for positive reasons, most won't.williamglenn said:
Trump has got this far because of the underlying popularity of his positions. If the election was just based on policy he would win easily.SouthamObserver said:
My vantage point shows me that Hillary has remained ahead of Trump because she is slightly less hated than he is. If that changes - and that looks like it could now happen - Trump will win. I am sure that some blue collar workers are voting Trump for positive reasons, just as I am sure that some people are voting for Hillary for positive reasons. But dislike is clearly the motivating factor for most.MaxPB said:
I think negatives.SouthamObserver said:
I am afraid I disagree. What I see is a lot of Hillary hate. Just as I see as lot of Trump hate on the other side. There is a reason why the two candidates spend almost all their time attacking each other. It's how they get their votes.MaxPB said:
Positive in a sense of voting for a candidate and his or her ideas vs voting against the other candidate. You may not like the idea of blue collar Dems wanting what Trump is offering, but it is what's happening.SouthamObserver said:
Not sure it is that much of a positive choice. The Trump vote is anti almost everything and clearly detests Hillary. He is getting the nihilistic vote.MaxPB said:
The question is whether blue collar Dems or GOP establishment voters are more numerous. I think another factor is that GOP establishment voters are making a negative choice while blue collar Dems are making a positive choice, the enthusiasm levels might have an effect, especially in light of the latest email leaks.rcs1000 said:
But, of course, Hillary is getting Republicans (like @Charles' in-laws) that a Democrat normally wouldn't.williamglenn said:See the Florida poll on the previous thread. If Trump is getting a third of some demographics of registered Democrats you can throw these projections in the bin.
0 -
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
0 -
is that from a discredited Repub documentary maker known for making stuff up and who lost a few lawsuits on that point?weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
0 -
Well the Democrat guy was sacked - so I suspect it wasn't.619 said:
is that from a discredited Repub documentary maker known for making stuff up and who lost a few lawsuits on that point?weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
0 -
No619 said:
is that from a discredited Repub documentary maker known for making stuff up and who lost a few lawsuits on that point?weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
0 -
A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
Which was my original point, I think the crossover voters for Trump are more likely to be making a positive choice than crossover voters for Hillary. Not a comforting thought for either of us, but there might e profitable opportunities if it is true.SouthamObserver said:But it's not and so he has been mostly behind from the get-go. He will get most of his votes from Republicans who always vote for whoever the Republican candidate is, just as Hillary will get most of her votes from Democrats who vote for whoever the Democrat candidate is. The key bit is the bit in the middle. Some of that will be voting for positive reasons, most won't.
0 -
The edited video by James O'Keefe who has paid out a six figure sum and apologised over a previous edited video? Excuse me if I do not take it seriously.weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
And even then the video did not say they instigated violence, just that they would protest peacefully and Trump supporters would initiate the violence.0 -
Of course, given the probabilistic nature of the model, the expected numbers in the electoral college do change gradually and continuously with the poll ratings. Those three states have turned pale pink now, but according to Silver the probability of Trump winning them is only in the range 52-54%.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
Still too soon to show any influence of the FBI news, of course.0 -
But you obviously ARE taking it seriously. Otherwise why attack it?Alistair said:
The edited video by James O'Keefe who has paid out a six figure sum and apologised over a previous edited video? Excuse me if I do not take it seriously.weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
And even then the video did not say they instigated violence, just that they would protest peacefully and Trump supporters would initiate the violence.0 -
0
-
In the innocent way that West Ham fans would protest peacefully by singing some songs outside the Spurs ground - and then be utterly astonished when Spurs fans started kicking their heads in.....Alistair said:
The edited video by James O'Keefe who has paid out a six figure sum and apologised over a previous edited video? Excuse me if I do not take it seriously.weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
And even then the video did not say they instigated violence, just that they would protest peacefully and Trump supporters would initiate the violence.
Are you really THAT naive?0 -
Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.0
-
Frank Luntz
“Clinton's support among likely voters 18-34 years old dropped -6 points, to 62% from 68%.”
Still leads by 40%.
https://t.co/4piui46iu5 https://t.co/WSRNOpD6zM0 -
I literally don't trust 1 moment of the video as a truthful depiction of reality given the source.MarqueeMark said:
In the innocent way that West Ham fans would protest peacefully by singing some songs outside the Spurs ground - and then be utterly astonished when Spurs fans started kicking their heads in.....Alistair said:
The edited video by James O'Keefe who has paid out a six figure sum and apologised over a previous edited video? Excuse me if I do not take it seriously.weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
And even then the video did not say they instigated violence, just that they would protest peacefully and Trump supporters would initiate the violence.
Are you really THAT naive?0 -
Because partisan wankers are trying to push it ?weejonnie said:
But you obviously ARE taking it seriously. Otherwise why attack it?Alistair said:
The edited video by James O'Keefe who has paid out a six figure sum and apologised over a previous edited video? Excuse me if I do not take it seriously.weejonnie said:Also I assume you are unaware about the undercover videos released showing that the Democrats tried to instigate violence at Trump meetings - and that the person in charge of this tactic visited the White House daily for the last year.
And even then the video did not say they instigated violence, just that they would protest peacefully and Trump supporters would initiate the violence.0 -
No reason why a trade deal cannot be agreed with the UK after Brexit and much more quickly since much of the spade work presumably already done.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
Canada is quite protectionist, can see then and France butting heads over this in future, that's the problem with 27 different special interests.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 5m5 minutes ago
Millennial voters (age 18-34) are about 31% of the electorate, but just 19% of voter turnout. (Boomers were 38%.)
It is incredible with so much at stake that this age group just can't be arsed. Same thing with EU referendum.
Makes me angry.0 -
Oh, is that what it is about.perdix said:
No reason why a trade deal cannot be agreed with the UK after Brexit and much more quickly since much of the spade work presumably already done.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
Looking at the photo I'd guessed at an agreement to recognise cross-border polygamous gay marriage.0 -
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
0 -
BBC Archive
#OTD 1938 Orson Welles' notorious War Of The Worlds radio play was broadcast, terrifying listeners across the US #Halloween https://t.co/q1GmxEZkHz0 -
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.0 -
Yay, a Dan Hodges prediction!rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
Melania should start measuring up for new curtains in the White House.0 -
Many more will be panicked after that tweet.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.0 -
I would have thought the EFTA-Canada trade deal will be the more likely templateperdix said:
No reason why a trade deal cannot be agreed with the UK after Brexit and much more quickly since much of the spade work presumably already done.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
Didn't the proposition that the young hadn't turned out in the EU refendum prove to be way off track?rottenborough said:Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 5m5 minutes ago
Millennial voters (age 18-34) are about 31% of the electorate, but just 19% of voter turnout. (Boomers were 38%.)
It is incredible with so much at stake that this age group just can't be arsed. Same thing with EU referendum.
Makes me angry.
0 -
Canada, New Zealand and South Korea are the three least protectionist real countries on the planet (i.e. ignoring microstates) according to WTO rankings.nunu said:
Canada is quite protectionist, can see then and France butting heads over this in future, that's the problem with 27 different special interests.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
That's the soft-Brexit/no-Brexit option, in which case we can just stay as we are.rcs1000 said:
I would have thought the EFTA-Canada trade deal will be the more likely templateperdix said:
No reason why a trade deal cannot be agreed with the UK after Brexit and much more quickly since much of the spade work presumably already done.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
I think I have this right, but if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Penn, Nevada and Arizona; and Utah goes indie - then it is an undecided ECV.
0 -
Were any other names put forward to this meeting though?Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.
Such wild acclimation should always be placed in context.
If there were no other candidates and only 100 members turned up it's a bit limp compared with the spin.0 -
You may be right:Theuniondivvie said:
Didn't the proposition that the young hadn't turned out in the EU refendum prove to be way off track?rottenborough said:Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 5m5 minutes ago
Millennial voters (age 18-34) are about 31% of the electorate, but just 19% of voter turnout. (Boomers were 38%.)
It is incredible with so much at stake that this age group just can't be arsed. Same thing with EU referendum.
Makes me angry.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
In which case I have been mouthing abuse into my pint for months over the wrong group of people :-)0 -
GeoffM said:
Were any other names put forward to this meeting though?Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.
Such wild acclimation should always be placed in context.
If there were no other candidates and only 100 members turned up it's a bit limp compared with the spin.
Indeed. Perhaps they could put a bar chart together to show us the full accurate picture of what happened?
0 -
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....0 -
I know, I started to get worried again when I read that. May have to change my trousers again at this rate.GeoffM said:
Yay, a Dan Hodges prediction!rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
Melania should start measuring up for new curtains in the White House.0 -
That's a great idea.MarkHopkins said:GeoffM said:
Were any other names put forward to this meeting though?Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.
Such wild acclimation should always be placed in context.
If there were no other candidates and only 100 members turned up it's a bit limp compared with the spin.
Indeed. Perhaps they could put a bar chart together to show us the full accurate picture of what happened?
We can always trust a LibDem bar chart to enlighten us.0 -
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
0 -
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP0 -
Acclimation is always gradual, never wild.GeoffM said:
Were any other names put forward to this meeting though?Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.
Such wild acclimation should always be placed in context.
If there were no other candidates and only 100 members turned up it's a bit limp compared with the spin.
Acclamation, on the other hand, is always wild.
Sorry - I'm being a clever clogs
0 -
In a parallel universe where the crooked crone isn't under criminal investigation by the FBI.JackW said:
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP
You're in shell shocked denial.0 -
Accepted!Barnesian said:
Acclimation is always gradual, never wild.GeoffM said:
Were any other names put forward to this meeting though?Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.
Such wild acclimation should always be placed in context.
If there were no other candidates and only 100 members turned up it's a bit limp compared with the spin.
Acclamation, on the other hand, is always wild.
Sorry - I'm being a clever clogs
(although the intended point still stands)0 -
This talk about paths is interesting. The real deal is where the candidates are spending their time on the ground. Clinton seems to have had a consistent strategy of visiting the toss up states / swing states that give her a healthy but not landslide ECV. I do not see that changing any time soon one way or another. Trump on the other hand seems to be playing a game of respectable loss.
I did meet some US citizens in London a couple of months ago. One was going to vote for Trump the other was undecided. I just listened to them and did not express a preference as I think it wrong to comment on another countries internal affairs in a social context.0 -
CNN:
Justice Department and FBI officials are working to secure approval that would allow the FBI to conduct a full search of top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedein's newly discovered emails, sources familiar with the discussions told CNN.
Government lawyers haven't yet approached Abedin's lawyers to seek an agreement to conduct the search. Sources earlier told CNN that those discussions had begun, but the law enforcement officials now say they have not.0 -
Was that before or after Lunch as Nunckers eyes look a bit odd!!williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
0 -
Och, we all need to mutter into our pints about someone!rottenborough said:
You may be right:Theuniondivvie said:
Didn't the proposition that the young hadn't turned out in the EU refendum prove to be way off track?rottenborough said:Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 5m5 minutes ago
Millennial voters (age 18-34) are about 31% of the electorate, but just 19% of voter turnout. (Boomers were 38%.)
It is incredible with so much at stake that this age group just can't be arsed. Same thing with EU referendum.
Makes me angry.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high
In which case I have been mouthing abuse into my pint for months over the wrong group of people :-)0 -
In a "parallel universe" Clinton wouldn't have Donald as the shield for all her failings ....MonikerDiCanio said:
In a parallel universe where the crooked crone isn't under criminal investigation by the FBI.JackW said:
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP
You're in shell shocked denial.
And there we have it ....
0 -
Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-377968760 -
The EU and EFTA deals with Canada could both be viewed as baseline templates for a bi-lateral without being in either the EU or EFTA.williamglenn said:
That's the soft-Brexit/no-Brexit option, in which case we can just stay as we are.rcs1000 said:
I would have thought the EFTA-Canada trade deal will be the more likely templateperdix said:
No reason why a trade deal cannot be agreed with the UK after Brexit and much more quickly since much of the spade work presumably already done.williamglenn said:A great day for Europe and Canada.
We are Canada's biggest trading partner in Europe, and over 40% of it's export market in the current EU.
0 -
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-377968760 -
I cannot believe someone with children would put the welfare of others over them. It is very sad.Sean_F said:
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-377968760 -
Clinton's advertising buy for the 10/25 to 10/31 week has doubled from ~$15 million to over $31 million -- heavy on Florida, national cable. https://t.co/yMDl3gYOmX0
-
In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi0 -
?!?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2606014/
The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server knew weeks ago that the thousands of emails they found in a separate investigation would be applicable to the case.
The agents waited weeks to disclose what they found in a briefing with FBI Director James Comey, according to sources familiar with the case, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.0 -
Hillary has Jennifer Lopez in her corner, who apparently has some psephological chops to rival your own.JackW said:
In a "parallel universe" Clinton wouldn't have Donald as the shield for all her failings ....MonikerDiCanio said:
In a parallel universe where the crooked crone isn't under criminal investigation by the FBI.JackW said:
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP
You're in shell shocked denial.
And there we have it ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886388/Hillary-tries-dance-troubles-away-JLo-endorsement-concert-Florida.html0 -
It sounds like she had an affair with the translator and that's why she got divorced.Sean_F said:
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-377968760 -
Waited until maximum damage for Clinton. Comfey is a GOP.PlatoSaid said:?!?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2606014/
The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server knew weeks ago that the thousands of emails they found in a separate investigation would be applicable to the case.
The agents waited weeks to disclose what they found in a briefing with FBI Director James Comey, according to sources familiar with the case, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.0 -
Razor blade?Charles said:
It sounds like she had an affair with the translator and that's why she got divorced.Sean_F said:
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37796876
0 -
Well, she's certainly got a nice ARSE!williamglenn said:
Hillary has Jennifer Lopez in her corner, who apparently has some psephological chops to rival your own.JackW said:
In a "parallel universe" Clinton wouldn't have Donald as the shield for all her failings ....MonikerDiCanio said:
In a parallel universe where the crooked crone isn't under criminal investigation by the FBI.JackW said:
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP
You're in shell shocked denial.
And there we have it ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886388/Hillary-tries-dance-troubles-away-JLo-endorsement-concert-Florida.html0 -
Helen for President!Sean_F said:
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37796876
At least she's only a loon and not under criminal investigation, unlike the two currently slugging it out.
Oh wait, damn, she's 28 and Welsh, so disqualified on two counts.0 -
.
Relationship in trouble - time in Calais was nail in coffin. Presumably she'd spent some time there before it became a decisive issue.TCPoliticalBetting said:
Razor blade?Charles said:
It sounds like she had an affair with the translator and that's why she got divorced.Sean_F said:
She sounds like a loon.JosiasJessop said:Acquaintances of mine helped in the Jungle, but 'Helen' in this story seems to have her priorities rather amiss:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37796876
She met the translator and "quickly fell in love" 5 months after first going.
By applying the methods prescribed by a 13th century monk, I conclude that her relationship with the translator had something to do with the divorce0 -
There is only one true ARSE!Sandpit said:
Well, she's certainly got a nice ARSE!williamglenn said:
Hillary has Jennifer Lopez in her corner, who apparently has some psephological chops to rival your own.JackW said:
In a "parallel universe" Clinton wouldn't have Donald as the shield for all her failings ....MonikerDiCanio said:
In a parallel universe where the crooked crone isn't under criminal investigation by the FBI.JackW said:
Unless she loses Florida over 300 appears firm. Losing AZ and NC takes Clinton down to 308 and that accounts for Trump taking Ohio and Iowa too :peter_from_putney said:
Jack - I readily accept that Hillary will very probably win. The issue for me is where she's most likely to finish in the 300 - 400 ECV range. As I posted half an hour ago the SkyBet odds for the three 30 seat ECV bands are surprisingly close to one another.JackW said:
Essentially 538 have edged Ohio, Iowa and Arizona back into Trump's column. They were the ripe fruit for Donald. Other swing states are more problematic.peter_from_putney said:The updated ECV projection from 538.com shows a similar, albeit drift of support from Hillary and towards The Donaldas we saw yesterday. If this were to continue for the next 9 days at the same rate, then we'd be close to a dead heat.
The numbers, with changes since yesterday are:
Cinton ......... 319 (-5)
Trump ......... 218 (+5)
They are currently shown as being around 100 ECVs apart. A week ago the gap was approx 145 ECVs.
So in effect, one large state of 22 ECVs or 3 small states each of 7 ECVs have swung away from Clinton to Trump. The interesting aspect now is that a couple of the larger, previously Democratic trending states, could now be in play.
1,894th reminder .... Trump must keep all of Romney 12 .... and then it's FOP or bust ....
http://www.270towin.com/maps/eX0wP
You're in shell shocked denial.
And there we have it ....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886388/Hillary-tries-dance-troubles-away-JLo-endorsement-concert-Florida.html0 -
I would think you can use satellite phones on aircraft, but I don't know.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi
Edit the article specifically says wifi0 -
Off now. The post-race piece will be up tomorrow morning.0
-
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?Sean_F said:
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.0 -
They turned out for Obama in bigger numbers than thatrottenborough said:Frank Luntz @FrankLuntz 5m5 minutes ago
Millennial voters (age 18-34) are about 31% of the electorate, but just 19% of voter turnout. (Boomers were 38%.)
It is incredible with so much at stake that this age group just can't be arsed. Same thing with EU referendum.
Makes me angry.0 -
Poor America. Such a terrible choice: a lying, misogynist, racist, dangerous, unpredictable crooked person, or Donald Trump.0
-
Aircraft wifi systems use satellite phones for their data signal. Retro-fit installs of these on older planes are notoriously slow and unreliable, especially on a plane full of journalists all trying to connect to it!philiph said:
I would think you can use satellite phones on aircraft, but I don't know.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi
Edit the article specifically says wifi
Modern OEM installs from Boeing and Airbus are really good though, can have a couple of hundred people browsing the web and checking their emails at the same time - albeit with no video allowed.0 -
Good choice of photographer and her reaction sounds very appropriate. Hillary appears to be a very cool lady. I wish the British had someone as impressive. As for her opponent.....if only three Americans were going to vote for him I'd find it shocking.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi0 -
I don't recall any stories saying the plane had no wifi at all. The stories said they only had a brief period of reception during which all the journalists got the message.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi0 -
Harry Enten on 538 finds that the biggest recorded effect of an "October Surprise" was a 2 point change in Obama's lead in 2008:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
Did you read the comment? It said the agents took weeks to finally disclose what they found to the director. He wasn't sitting on it.rottenborough said:
Waited until maximum damage for Clinton. Comfey is a GOP.PlatoSaid said:?!?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2606014/
The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server knew weeks ago that the thousands of emails they found in a separate investigation would be applicable to the case.
The agents waited weeks to disclose what they found in a briefing with FBI Director James Comey, according to sources familiar with the case, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.0 -
And the biggest bomb before August 1945 was about 10 tonnes of TNT. Your point?Chris said:Harry Enten on 538 finds that the biggest recorded effect of an "October Surprise" was a 2 point change in Obama's lead in 2008:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
Chris said:
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.
Yeah, although it's not impossible. If Trump has 25% chance overall, about a third of that is down to him losing the popular vote but winning the EC. For example, say he shifts the national vote 4%, thus taking all the main 5 swing states (FL OH NV NC IA), then NH lives up to the independent stereotype and flips = he has 270 but Clinton has >1% more votes.
Clinton expanding the race to Arizona, Alaska, Georgia and even Texas is looking like hubris now (although understandable as the polls were). She might lose all these narrowly and get nothing for her efforts.
0 -
Yes, it may well be as simple as that. I think hillary will win with room to spare, but overperforming in the Sunbelt and underperforming in the Midwest.Chris said:
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?Sean_F said:
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.
I don't think there's much value out there0 -
She does keep a cool head, in noticeable contrast to the Trumpster.Roger said:
Good choice of photographer and her reaction sounds very appropriate. Hillary appears to be a very cool lady. I wish the British had someone as impressive. As for her opponent.....if only three Americans were going to vote for him I'd find it shocking.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi0 -
18:33 GMT and the fireworks have begun in Southern Bedford shire. Happy Diwali!0
-
Given most recent US polls have had Hillary's lead over Trump at slightly more than Obama's lead over Romney it is hardly surprising early voting so far has reflected 2012. However, as of today the RCP poll average has Hillary leading Trump by just 3.4% in a 4 way race, 0.5% less than Obama's margin over Romney with most of the polling done before the new emailgate news. Given 80% of Americans are yet to vote there is plenty left to run in this race
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html0 -
Grand Slam had a thick, aerodynamic, ground-penetrating case. Unlikely to have that much power within (despite aluminium enhancers).weejonnie said:
And the biggest bomb before August 1945 was about 10 tonnes of TNT. Your point?Chris said:Harry Enten on 538 finds that the biggest recorded effect of an "October Surprise" was a 2 point change in Obama's lead in 2008:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
That's why I really don't credit the view that Clinton would be more likely to take the US to war than Trump. Clinton would be much more likely to think things through and use the very skills that she's in trouble for at the moment to find another avenue.foxinsoxuk said:
She does keep a cool head, in noticeable contrast to the Trumpster.Roger said:
Good choice of photographer and her reaction sounds very appropriate. Hillary appears to be a very cool lady. I wish the British had someone as impressive. As for her opponent.....if only three Americans were going to vote for him I'd find it shocking.rottenborough said:In depth on what happened on the plane when news broke:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-email-campaign-20161029-story.html?utm_content=bufferb9755&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Link via Luntz
This contradicts other stories that there was no wifi
Trump would just be bellicose.0 -
Interestingly CBS today has Clinton's lead in Colorado down to just 3%, which means it might also be a potential Trump target along with its 9 EC votesAndrew said:Chris said:Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.
Yeah, although it's not impossible. If Trump has 25% chance overall, about a third of that is down to him losing the popular vote but winning the EC. For example, say he shifts the national vote 4%, thus taking all the main 5 swing states (FL OH NV NC IA), then NH lives up to the independent stereotype and flips = he has 270 but Clinton has >1% more votes.
Clinton expanding the race to Arizona, Alaska, Georgia and even Texas is looking like hubris now (although understandable as the polls were). She might lose all these narrowly and get nothing for her efforts.
https://www.scribd.com/document/329404955/CBS-News-Battleground-Tracker-Colorado-Oct-30-2016#from_embed0 -
It does seem unfortunate that the head of the FBI is a registered Republican. As this seems to be the new angle on the story it's very difficult to predict who if anyone it's likely to damage.
0 -
4 tons of Torpex, actually, IIRCFluffyThoughts said:
Grand Slam had a thick, aerodynamic, ground-penetrating case. Unlikely to have that much power within (despite aluminium enhancers).weejonnie said:
And the biggest bomb before August 1945 was about 10 tonnes of TNT. Your point?Chris said:Harry Enten on 538 finds that the biggest recorded effect of an "October Surprise" was a 2 point change in Obama's lead in 2008:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
According to 538 Trumps vote is more efficient because of his huge lead with older whites. He is more likely to 'win' even if he loses popular vote by 1%.Chris said:
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?Sean_F said:
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.0 -
I love diwali. Sweeties and samosas galore at work tomorrow!FluffyThoughts said:18:33 GMT and the fireworks have begun in Southern Bedford shire. Happy Diwali!
Poor pussy cat not so keen tbough :-(0 -
He was, but apparently is no longer. And remember, he was appointed by Obama, so he can't be that bad!Roger said:It does seem unfortunate that the head of the FBI is a registered Republican. As this seems to be the new angle on the story it's very difficult to predict who if anyone it's likely to damage.
0 -
If Clinton is doubling her money on advertising in Florida it would suggest:-
1) She thinks she is or could fall behind and
2) She needs it.0 -
0% of Republicans are more likely to support her, 26% less likely to support her. Amongst Democrats 5% are less likely to support her, 13% more likely. So overall that is a clear potential net loss for ClintonJackW said:
And 13% more likely to support her ....Chris said:
Showing 5% of Democrats less likely to support Clinton as a result of the FBI statement. That's roughly the same as the 7% in another poll quoted earlier, so 2 or 3% of those polled.JackW said:Pennsylvania - North Carolina - Colorado - Arizona - YouGov/CBS - Total Sample 4,074 - 26-28 Oct
PA - Clinton 48 .. Trump 40
NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
CO - Clinton 42 .. Trump 39
AZ - Clinton 42 .. Trump 44
Note - Different post Dickileak poll shows little impact.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-battleground-poll-partisans-divide-on-news-of-fbi-emails/
The trouble is, if 3% actually changed sides, on the current 538 model that would give Trump Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and put him well over the finishing line.
I'm minded to think that on balance there will be little polling fallout. The voters know that Clinton made an almighty balls up of her server. The insulation she has is called Donald Trump.
We'll get some indications from the trackers and possible enthusiasm from early voting trends.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-battleground-poll-partisans-divide-on-news-of-fbi-emails/0 -
According to Wiki, it has just over 4 tons of explosive for the 10 ton weight. As you say, this was purposefully done to allow it to penetrate deep underground before exploding (giving it a nickname of the earthquake bomb)FluffyThoughts said:
Grand Slam had a thick, aerodynamic, ground-penetrating case. Unlikely to have that much power within (despite aluminium enhancers).weejonnie said:
And the biggest bomb before August 1945 was about 10 tonnes of TNT. Your point?Chris said:Harry Enten on 538 finds that the biggest recorded effect of an "October Surprise" was a 2 point change in Obama's lead in 2008:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)
That page also links to the Heligoland explosion;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland#Explosion0 -
I disagree, Trump leads the popular vote in at least one poll, he does not lead enough states in any polls to win the EC unless they are slightly wrong (of course not impossible). So it is more likely Trump wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college than Hillary wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college.nunu said:
According to 538 Trumps vote is more efficient because of his huge lead with older whites. He is more likely to 'win' even if he loses popular vote by 1%.Chris said:
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?Sean_F said:
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.0 -
And back in the real world, Zac will win possibly with an increased majority...Barnesian said:
At a meeting of members, she got about 100 votes for, with nil against and nil abstentions amid great enthusiam.slade said:Sarah Olney confirmed as Lib Dem candidate for Richmond Park.
When she is elected, the proportion of women LibDem MPs, will be the highest its history.0 -
Within 0-0.75% the EC can go to the candidate with the smaller vote. After that, it should always go to the candidate with the bigger vote.Chris said:
Despite all the emphasis on state-by-state analysis, isn't it still the case that the winner of the popular vote will almost certainly also win the electoral college?Sean_F said:
Yeh, the more support you have the wider the path.williamglenn said:
Constant repetition that 'he doesn't have a path' doesn't make it true or insightful. His path is that more people will vote for him than expected, or fewer will vote for Hillary. That's all it takes.rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges 3m3 minutes ago
Lot of people starting to panic about Trump. But the fundamentals remain the same. He doesn't have path.
4% behind, and Trump probably loses North Carolina, but gains Ohio and Iowa, taking him to 215 EC votes.
2% behind, he likely adds Florida and Maine 2 That's 245.
1% behind, he holds North Carolina and adds Nevada. That's 265.
Level-pegging, he wins either or both of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and the Presidency.
And I'm not convinced anyone really knows whose vote is more efficiently distributed, in the event that's not the case.
I think Trump's vote is more efficiently distributed than Romney's was.0 -
