politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead
Boondocks
0
This discussion has been closed.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead
Comments
Crickey, that's 2 in 2 days, I am not spending nearly enough time working.
Oprah seems a clever lady and she may well answer these and other questions well and articulately but at the moment we don't even know if her answers would make her a republican or a democrat. I understand that she has given some money to some members of the Democratic party over the years. But what does she think herself? We don't know yet.
On September 24, 2011, Cain won a surprise victory in a Republican presidential straw poll in Florida, with 37 percent of the 2,657 votes cast. The front-runner Rick Perry, who had been leading in the polls, came in second with 15 percent.[30] Continuing with his success, on October 1, 2011 Cain won the TeaCon Midwest straw poll by a landslide with 77% of the vote.[31] Cain also won the National Federation of Republican Women straw poll by a wide margin with 48.9%. The nearest contender was Rick Perry with 14.1%, followed closely by Mitt Romney with 13.3% and Newt Gingrich with 12.5%.[32] Of the delegates voting, 80% said they were satisfied with the field of candidates; asked whether they identified with the Tea Party, about half said yes and half said no.[33] A Fox News poll administered on October 23–25, showed Cain as the front-runner receiving 24%, and Mitt Romney coming in at second place with 20%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain_presidential_campaign,_2012
"Under Mr Williamson's proposal, council tax would be frozen in Bands A to C, with increases of 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% applied to the higher bands."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42639553
Theresa May: "Weak, stubborn, unstable, Thatcher-wannabe, outspoken, false promises, self-centred, arrogant, incompetent, rubbish, clueless, useless" etc.
Jeremy Corbyn: "Grounded, strong, optimistic, confident, untrustworthy, naive, warm, inexperienced, risky, respectable, focused, dodgy" etc
At least they came up with SOME nice things to say about Corbyn, unlike May.
http://britainthinks.com/pdfs/The-Year-Ahead_Breakfast-Briefing-Slides_09.01.18.pdf
I can actually see the Oprah speculation harming Democrats - it weakens their argument that Trump is an appalling aberration, not just because of his views but because you need a political expert. If she does run, slagging her off is effectively slagging off your own base. If she doesn't, no one will measure up to what might have been - especially if the candidate is male and pale.
However, as Scotland and Wales have their powers of tax devolved Corbyn may have to set rates that compete with the devolved powers or lose business to them
He responded: "How did you work that out"
St Peter: "We added up all the time in your life-time that you charged to clients"
Trump is a disaster but a luvvie could be just as bad
Of course, this was in the days before PB. Thankfully at the bar we don't worry about time recording too much.
https://tinyurl.com/yaz5g8nn
It took Thatcher to tame the unions and inflation and Blair to show Labour could run the economy, Corbyn could reverse both their achievememts
https://youtu.be/lwawPMSJins
The Mayor of London's proposed council tax increase to fund police and fire services for the entire year in April is less than a frail elderly person pays in every borough for just one hour of home care from a home help which in reality ends up being less than 30 minutes.
Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.
I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
And this is what the Conservatives have to get across.
Corbyn 's tax changes won't be like the bits of tinkering we've had from all Governments within memory - they'll be major changes with a major impact on people's lives.
Of course most people don't live in top Council Tax band homes. But an increase of 20% on Band D (the average home) and 40% on Band E (just one band above average) are huge increases which would affect millions and millions of ordinary people.
Most people don't have the faintest idea that this is the sort of thing Corbyn will mean. The Conservatives have to ensure everyone does know.
The 2017 election shows that a massive pressure is building up for more government spending, when the tide goes out for the Tories it will be interesting to see how far the tide goes out this time....
If the Tories have any sense they should be all over this.
Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.
Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
She has many flaws but at present there is no other choice
Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
I also note there's very little appetite there for another referendum.
I can assure you when you get an elderly gran or dad needing social care and you see the cost of it it certainly puts whining about comparatively small monthly rises in council tax in perspective. Let alone fewer police and firefighters in a post Grenfell, rising crime, increasing terrorism world.
Not saying either is right - but you cannot have low taxes and good quality public services when you are £2trillion in debt. The country needs to choose!
• And Theresa May’s reputation is much weaker than the reputation of the Conservative Party – suggesting that a new leader could change the dynamic considerably"
According to Chris Williamson they know that they would have get this past local referenda. Also I thought that the relationship between the bands was fixed by law so I don't think this can be introduced without there being primary legislation first.
But in answer to this - "I suspect most Labour supporters live in Band A, B or C and so why are they going to be put off voting Labour? " - it is possible that they may fear that the tax increases will not be limited to the better off but will inevitably end up hitting them. They may also worry that it places a limit on their aspirations.
I don't know whether this will be the case. I just raise it as a possibility.
The issue for Labour is that it would not take many voters who might have voted Labour not to do so for them to fail to win a majority. So even if something like this only changes a relatively small number of votes it might be enough to deny them victory.
And some of those people are going to moan about it.
Given that, the Council Tax idea is one possibility among many.
Social Care needs to be funded somehow, if it is not to be funded by the individual, which seems to be politically impossible.
Never mind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/26/to-beat-president-trump-you-have-to-learn-to-think-like-his-supporters/
Normal politicians collapse in the face of scandal because it shows them dozing on the job or falling short of their promises. To get elected, they offer a bargain: “Vote for me. I will make you richer/fight for your rights/assure your progress.” Scandals reveal that they can’t do that, and thus, they tumble. However, like all populists, Trump offered a much different deal: “Vote for me. I will destroy your enemies. They are the reason you are not rich/have fewer rights/America is not great anymore.” Scandal is the populist’s natural element for the same reason that demolishing buildings makes more noise than constructing them. His supporters didn’t vote for silence. They voted for a bang.
So it is an English issue and he will lose huge parts of middle England if he proposes higher council tax, indeed it could be his dementia tax
Though interestingly homelessness was also a big concern, so it was not opposition to welfare per se as much as excessive benefits paid from their taxes
That said, I wonder whether these findings also match other polling. We know about my generation being right of centre on welfare, research came out on that in January 2017. Indeed that research further backs up that it’s the Tory party’s embrace of Brexit, and with it a kind of social conservatism that is toxic to many young voters (the research found that while young voters were right wing on welfare they were socially liberal in attitudes). https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539
Indeed what it backs up (as noted by Jennings in the article) is that politics is less defined by traditional right/left lines, which perhaps would be of benefit to the Tories. It goes back to what Curtice was saying a few weeks ago - that the political divide is socially liberal/socially conservative which is why the Tory party aren’t doing so well with young people.
But the image of the Conservative party being all that great? I haven’t seen that many other polls suggest that.
But, blue collar whites have been shifting Republican at a rate of knots, over the past generation, therefore the Republicans should be focusing on places with lots of blue collar whites, but which were historically Democratic. Blue collar White voters in the US overall are now about as Republican as they were in the Deep South 25 years ago.
Check the comparative number of visits each candidate did to those states specifically.
The fairest solution is that the elderly pay the tax to fund social care, and particularly the elderly with property wealth.
And so we are back with Labour's Death Tax, the LibDem's Mansion Tax and the Tory Dementia Tax -- all of which basically taxed housing wealth of the elderly and all of which proved to be electoral poison.
My guess is that the can will continue to be kicked down the road. Ultimately, too many people want to inherit a house rather than see it swallowed up to pay for free social care for all.
'That depends on what the Tories offer as an alternative, since more cuts seems too difficult to gain support now. If both are offering some real unpalatable options, it's a bit of a crapshoot.'
I think we can agree dementia tax is dead and buried but the wider point is he cannot raise revenue in council tax in either Wales or Scotland or general tax post 2019
I believe Hunt thinks he can and that is why he refused to go and insisted Social care was added to Health. He was very assured at the dispatch box today
The NHS thing isn’t related to the socially liberal/socially Conservative divide I’m talking about. That’s more of a Left/Right thing. Re gay marriage - I don’t know what attitudes pensioners have to it nowadays, but Tory members weren’t that supportive of it according to Tim Bale’s survey.
The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too
Dementia patients pay for their care since the days of New Labour. The phrase Dementia Tax was first used by the Alzheimer's Society to describe the New Labour reforms.
The can has already been kicked down the road for a decade and a half.
The curious thing about the treatment of dementia patients is most people now believe the Tories are responsible for an appalling set of New Labour reforms which left dementia patients in this predicament.
New Labour left a huge bucket of shit. And Theresa May spectacularly managed to upturn the bucket of shit all over the Tories.
Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.
And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.
How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?
That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
I can see the need to pay more for social care, for instance. And I have no objection to doing so.
But what would mightily piss me off is to pay the higher tax and see that money wasted so that not only do I not get social care when I need it but I also cannot pay for it myself because of all the higher tax I have had to pay.
I do not have confidence that Labour are concerned about value for money. I fear that they will just spend and that the spending will not be directed sensibly and that additional taxes raised will be just frittered away. So we could end up both personally poorer and without the wonderful public services we have been promised.
Corbyn makes a good case when he says to the rich that they too will need the NHS one day. But he really needs to address how money raised will be spent so that it really leads to a measurable improvement for patients - and not merely higher wages for staff or more jobs for union members or whatever.
It is this side of the equation where Labour usually fail. They seem to think that spending, per se, is good without ever asking themselves the question: what are we spending the money on? Is it good value? What does it achieve for the end user? i.e. the patient, elderly person, etc. There is absolutely no evidence so far that Corbyn's Labour has even thought about these questions let alone come up with any convincing answers.