Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.
The journalist comes across worse than Banks.
And I am no fan of Banks.
Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???
(*) aside from the obvious ...
It was a feeble attempt at humour.
I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
You were always a punny guy
Oh, Fawkes off
Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.
The journalist comes across worse than Banks.
And I am no fan of Banks.
Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???
(*) aside from the obvious ...
It was a feeble attempt at humour.
I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
You were always a punny guy
Oh, Fawkes off
Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
Only 8 seats would have to swing from Dem to GOP to change the outcome. Election night should be exciting given the number of close individual results expected.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
As a PB Lefty I do think that Channel 4 News merely provides Remoaner propaganda.
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.
The journalist comes across worse than Banks.
And I am no fan of Banks.
Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???
(*) aside from the obvious ...
It was a feeble attempt at humour.
I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
You were always a punny guy
Oh, Fawkes off
Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
Your thoughts seem angry. Penny for them, guy?
You’re just raking over the ashes now.
True. But they were the bonfire of our vanities...
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
As a PB Lefty I do think that Channel 4 News merely provides Remoaner propaganda.
Your use of the term 'remoaner' merely indicates you are too biased to make any such judgement ...
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
As a PB Lefty I do think that Channel 4 News merely provides Remoaner propaganda.
Your use of the term 'remoaner' merely indicates you are too biased to make any such judgement ...
Channel 4 news went down the plughole when Peter Sissons left and was replaced by his lofty lefty understudy.
That was in 1989 IIRC.
I quite like C4 News. I like them mainly because they're not the BBC.
The BBC is though my favourite news source, but occasionally ludicrously biased, and totally oblivious to criticism.
As far as I can see the newspaper news sources went off the boil long ago. I barely bother with them nowdays, although if somehow they reinvented themselves as news organs, albeit with patchy,delayed and incomplete coverage, I'd be a fan.
You can get some apparent depth with articles in (for example) the Economist. However when I know something about the area in which they write (say Economics) their coverage is so poor that I simply doubt their accuracy in other areas.
I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.
When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.
I'm disappointed Malcolm hasn't made the obvious retort about Scotland...
I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.
When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.
Just half a step away from “Gallic twats” mode again I see, Casino. How odd life must look, viewed from your crusty Union Jack y-fronts.
Hey, all my Union Jack underwear is well laundered. You have to respect our nation's flag.
I don't know why you're so curious about seeing the world from my crotch, but I'm taken thanks xxx
Channel 4 news went down the plughole when Peter Sissons left and was replaced by his lofty lefty understudy.
That was in 1989 IIRC.
I quite like C4 News. I like them mainly because they're not the BBC.
The BBC is though my favourite news source, but occasionally ludicrously biased, and totally oblivious to criticism.
As far as I can see the newspaper news sources went off the boil long ago. I barely bother with them nowdays, although if somehow they reinvented themselves as news organs, albeit with patchy,delayed and incomplete coverage, I'd be a fan.
You can get some apparent depth with articles in (for example) the Economist. However when I know something about the area in which they write (say Economics) their coverage is so poor that I simply doubt their accuracy in other areas.
Newspapers are crap and BBC is Westminster propaganda unit. At least CH4 try to report some real news.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.
When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.
Just half a step away from “Gallic twats” mode again I see, Casino. How odd life must look, viewed from your crusty Union Jack y-fronts.
Hey, all my Union Jack underwear is well laundered. You have to respect our nation's flag.
I don't know why you're so curious about seeing the world from my crotch, but I'm taken thanks xxx
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
Not a clue. Genuine answer. That's why I've exited all the US markets I was betting on - and I'd been banging on about what great odds I'd got on Dem majority in the House in the past and that people should pile on at evens.
Unlike the UK American polls are often hellishly light on precise demographic detail. Which is the kind of detail you need to make a good fist at unskewing the polls. Like, in 2016 the first question asked by Emerson College polling was "did you vote in the previous presidential election" and they immediatly stop the call if the respondent had not votes last time. Not even gathering demographic information of the non voter!
Like in 2015 people on here were able to work out the problems with the YouGov poll due to the detailed breakdowns they put out and fairly accurately unskew them. Without that for the USA polling I believe we are flying totally blind. And at that point for me I wouldn't be gambling I'd be guessing.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
That seems right to me. It's a bit like the difference in the probability distribution you might draw up off of GE opinion polls and the exit poll. The latter is much tighter.
Channel 4 news went down the plughole when Peter Sissons left and was replaced by his lofty lefty understudy.
That was in 1989 IIRC.
I quite like C4 News. I like them mainly because they're not the BBC.
The BBC is though my favourite news source, but occasionally ludicrously biased, and totally oblivious to criticism.
As far as I can see the newspaper news sources went off the boil long ago. I barely bother with them nowdays, although if somehow they reinvented themselves as news organs, albeit with patchy,delayed and incomplete coverage, I'd be a fan.
You can get some apparent depth with articles in (for example) the Economist. However when I know something about the area in which they write (say Economics) their coverage is so poor that I simply doubt their accuracy in other areas.
Newspapers are crap and BBC is Westminster propaganda unit. At least CH4 try to report some real news.
Like Newsnight, C4 News does fewer stories, but in decent depth. Best news out there.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
Not a clue. Genuine answer. That's why I've exited all the US markets I was betting on - and I'd been banging on about what great odds I'd got on Dem majority in the House in the past and that people should pile on at evens.
Unlike the UK American polls are often hellishly light on precise demographic detail. Which is the kind of detail you need to make a good fist at unskewing the polls. Like, in 2016 the first question asked by Emerson College polling was "did you vote in the previous presidential election" and they immediatly stop the call if the respondent had not votes last time. Not even gathering demographic information of the non voter!
Like in 2015 people on here were able to work out the problems with the YouGov poll due to the detailed breakdowns they put out and fairly accurately unskew them. Without that for the USA polling I believe we are flying totally blind. And at that point for me I wouldn't be gambling I'd be guessing.
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.
The journalist comes across worse than Banks.
And I am no fan of Banks.
Absolutely agree, pointless grandstanding pretending to be fearless journalism.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
Texas voters have recently been redder than the Texas adult population. Turnout at elections has traditionally been low. A higher turnout, if it happens, should bring a bluer mix. Overturning an original 10% + Cruz advantage is a big ask though.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
I always found this a bit confusing in statistics. Is there a meaningful difference between your first sentence and your second with " according to our model" tacked on?
On the one hand Channel 4 is state owned with a stronger ' Public Service Broadcasting ' remit imposed on it than the other commercial stations. On the other hand Channel 4 isn't state funded and generates it's revenue stream commercially. Channel 4 News is made by commercial broadcaster ITN.
It's fair to say Channel 4 News is disproportionately expensive and long for a company it's size. It's one of the ways Channel 4 discharges it's heavier ' Public Service ' remit. It's also fair to say there's no conspiracy here. Channel 4 News is a classic premium and niche product in a mass market. Forced by law to offer something more expensive and extensive than it would otherwise do it makesca virture out of necessity and offers a quirky, niche, distinctive product to it's disproportionately younger audience.
I could understand PB Tories advocating privatisation of Channel 4 but not criticising a commercally orientated body for producing a product it's customer base likes.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
I always found this a bit confusing in statistics. Is there a meaningful difference between your first sentence and your second with " according to our model" tacked on?
Yes there is such a meaningful difference.
Imagine a model. The model is a box with an imp inside it. The imp tosses a coin: if its heads he says "Cruz" and if its tails he says "Beto". The conscientious modeller runs 100,000 poll combinations thru it and after crunching the data says "the probability of Beto winning is 50%!". But that's obviously gibberish.
If the model accurately represents real-life, then the two sentences will line up (but still not mean the same thing!). If the model is inaccurate, then they'll deviate.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
As a PB Lefty I do think that Channel 4 News merely provides Remoaner propaganda.
Channel 4 News is clearly biaised on Brexit, but it also has the best factual analysis of what's happening with Brexit. By not bothering to report Leaver unicorns "for balance" it can concentrate on what's actually going on.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
Yes there's no way it could be the latter when if just 8 very close districts that are currently being assigned to the Democrats were in fact won by the GOP would change the overall outcome.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
I may get roasted in Statistician Hell for this, but the probabilistic range that you get from a model is not the probability of the event, it's the variability of the model. The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
There is no knowing at this point. We’re just down to gut feelings and opinion.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
Also, I don't think anyone was saying Texas would go blue till 2 years ago. The dominance of the Bushes may well have made it appear more red than it really was. Remember there was a Bush, and therefore a Texan, on the Presidential ballot 6 out of 7 GEs. 1980-2004.
As we weigh all the other considerations we shouldn't over look Beto O'Rouke is a DILF. As Transatlantic civilisation has lurched towards a new Dark Age everyone has been depressingly ugly. Italy has " Dads and Lads " Salvini and Di Maio but they are the Dark Side. Even Christian Linder has headed off right.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
I’m willing to bet that Texas goes blue well before any of those happen (though ‘room temp’ superconductors have some chance of surprising).
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.
When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.
Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.
So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.
In addition, like the indy vote in Scotland, the final result was much closer than many had expected at the outset. Initial polls were suggesting 60/40 or even 70/30 for staying with France.
And now I MUST work. Tsk.
Strangely only those resident before 1994 could vote which must have depressed the anti-independence margin of victory somewhat.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
A full 6 year term as Senator the running in 2024 would be his ideal path?
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
That's something of an exaggeration. From the 1970s it was a Republican state with a single very popular Democratic senator in Lloyd Bentsen. The second senator at all times in his tenure and indeed since 1960 has been a Republican.
It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 50 years since a Democratic senator was first elected to office in Texas - 1970. For most of Bentsen's time, the governorship also alternated between the two parties, and since 1968 it has only once voted Dem (and never since 1976).
So, again, a serious exaggeration to call it 'blue.'
This is not to say the Democrats cannot or will not win. It is to say it would be a major upset and a very significant victory. If Beto O'Rorke wins, he goes hot favourite for the Democratic nomination.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
Yes. Yes. No.
A high profile win would propel him forward because he is a winner, not because he is a careerist. And given the mess the Dems and indeed the States are in, boy how they could do with some of that Obama stardust.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
The Democrats have not won Texas in a presidential election since Carter in 1976
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
The Democrats have not won Texas in a presidential election since Carter in 1976
I'm feeling contrary. How long ago was it that a Republican POTUS candidate won the rust belt?
Only 8 seats would have to swing from Dem to GOP to change the outcome. Election night should be exciting given the number of close individual results expected.
The latest House poll has it Democrats 52% Republicans 44%, so the GOP vote roughly reflects Trump's approval rating and the Democrats should win the majority. The Senate is less likely to swing as only a 1/3 of seats are up and most of them Democrat
Interestingly the Democratic lead in that poll almost exactly matches the 51.9% to 44.9% the GOP led in the popular vote in 2010 the last time the House changed hands, just the GOP gained 63 seats which the Democrats are unlikely to match on Tuesday even if they do take control
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
The Democrats have not won Texas in a presidential election since Carter in 1976
I'm feeling contrary. How long ago was it that a Republican POTUS candidate won the rust belt?
1984, not sure about since. Unless you count Trump, of course.
Edit - Bush carried nearly all of it in 1988, on checking.
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
The Democrats have not won Texas in a presidential election since Carter in 1976
I'm feeling contrary. How long ago was it that a Republican POTUS candidate won the rust belt?
Trump did worse than Romney in Texas but better in the rustbelt which won him the election
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
But Texas was blue until the 1990s!
That's something of an exaggeration. From the 1970s it was a Republican state with a single very popular Democratic senator in Lloyd Bentsen. The second senator at all times in his tenure and indeed since 1960 has been a Republican.
It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 50 years since a Democratic senator was first elected to office in Texas - 1970. For most of Bentsen's time, the governorship also alternated between the two parties, and since 1968 it has only once voted Dem (and never since 1976).
So, again, a serious exaggeration to call it 'blue.'
This is not to say the Democrats cannot or will not win. It is to say it would be a major upset and a very significant victory. If Beto O'Rorke wins, he goes hot favourite for the Democratic nomination.
If O'Rourke loses he could try again for Senate in 2020 or for Texas governor in 2022
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
Course he does. Guarantees him a shot at the White House (though likely not this time around).
It's almost like the turnout filters are broken due to unprecedented high turnout.
If only some wise person had been saying this for the last few weeks.
OK. Do you think Beto or Cruz is going to win? Genuine question.
I think Beto or Cruz will win.
NOT. HELPING.
I expect Cruz to win.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Texas turning Blue is like room temperature superconductors, economically-useful nuclear fusion or Brazil becoming a wealthy nation. Everyone agrees its going to happen, and soon, but it never actually does.
This is true, but Texas has been measurably turning bluer at a decent clip. In 2016 it was within single digits for the first time since the Bill Clinton era.
As we weigh all the other considerations we shouldn't over look Beto O'Rouke is a DILF. As Transatlantic civilisation has lurched towards a new Dark Age everyone has been depressingly ugly. Italy has " Dads and Lads " Salvini and Di Maio but they are the Dark Side. Even Christian Linder has headed off right.
The Resistence needs some totty.
I will claim very limited knowledge on the subject, but surely no liberal man crush discussion needs look beyond Justin Trudeau?
And I never quite understood why demonstrable fertility in either gender made 'ILFness' somehow less of a natural state and not more.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
Yes. Yes. No.
A high profile win would propel him forward because he is a winner, not because he is a careerist. And given the mess the Dems and indeed the States are in, boy how they could do with some of that Obama stardust....
I actually disagree with the last point. The Democrats need to rebuild and win from the ground up - Obama did them no favours at all at state level.
(& incidentally O’Rourke has been pretty vehement that he will serve a full Senate term if elected - which I think is smart if he really wants to be President.)
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
O/T - The CSU and The Free Voters party have announced a deal for a coalition in Bavaria. Main points are beefed up border force, more teachers, no fourth runway at Munich Airport and no diesel bans in cities.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
How do you know?
They don’t pay for it - I do
@YellowSubmarine pointed out upthread that C4 isn't public funded.
Who is behind these contradictory briefings to the press, and why?
I assume it's jockeying for advantage in the final round - "you may have to give a little more to get a deal". But I do think we'll get something by next week, and it will wriggle through Parliament with lots of different interpretations.
Who is behind these contradictory briefings to the press, and why?
I assume it's jockeying for advantage in the final round - "you may have to give a little more to get a deal". But I do think we'll get something by next week, and it will wriggle through Parliament with lots of different interpretations.
I do not contribute much to the US elections but I thought this exchange was funny
Amanda Walker Sky correspondent to a Republican female voter
'The women on the left are mad'
Reply
'Yes - they are always mad'
I dunno, “mad” here almost always means “angry”. It can mean “crazy” as in the usual British sense of “mad” but that is very much the secondary meaning. I think (without having seen it, of course) what the interviewee was saying was simply, “Yes - they are always angry”.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
The Boris Johnson strategy? Beto as Bojo. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. It is a risky tactic: ask Boris. No, I expect 2024 or 2028 was always the plan.
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
How do you know?
They don’t pay for it - I do
So no Channel 4 viewer pays the TV licence fee, any taxes or buys goods advertised on it?
I do not contribute much to the US elections but I thought this exchange was funny
Amanda Walker Sky correspondent to a Republican female voter
'The women on the left are mad'
Reply
'Yes - they are always mad'
I dunno, “mad” here almost always means “angry”. It can mean “crazy” as in the usual British sense of “mad” but that is very much the secondary meaning. I think (without having seen it, of course) what the interviewee was saying was simply, “Yes - they are always angry”.
I do not contribute much to the US elections but I thought this exchange was funny
Amanda Walker Sky correspondent to a Republican female voter
'The women on the left are mad'
Reply
'Yes - they are always mad'
I dunno, “mad” here almost always means “angry”. It can mean “crazy” as in the usual British sense of “mad” but that is very much the secondary meaning. I think (without having seen it, of course) what the interviewee was saying was simply, “Yes - they are always angry”.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
How do you know?
They don’t pay for it - I do
@YellowSubmarine pointed out upthread that C4 isn't public funded.
I thought they got a small cut of the licence fee.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
How do you know?
They don’t pay for it - I do
@YellowSubmarine pointed out upthread that C4 isn't public funded.
I thought they got a small cut of the licence fee.
Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too
Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
How do you know?
They don’t pay for it - I do
@YellowSubmarine pointed out upthread that C4 isn't public funded.
I thought they got a small cut of the licence fee.
I don't think they do anymore.
No, though their operating losses are guaranteed by the state, so in effect it's taxpayer funded.
The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
There is no knowing at this point. We’re just down to gut feelings and opinion.
If one or the other side turns out its core voters in larger numbers than expected then it will look like a systemic polling error. Midterms are more about getting your core vote out than convincing the undecideds (although both are important). From reading articles from all sides of the political spectrum, my take is that the Republicans may be understated in the House race for the following reasons:
1. Republican enthusiasm appears to be sky high and I expect turn out to follow this. Early voting statistics back this up. 2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them. 3. The concentration of the Dem vote in big cities which may count against them in many House districts.
For that reason I have the House down as a toss up. The odds on a dem win in the house are just not attractive but if I can get anywhere close to evens I'd pile on the dems at that level. To me 6-4 on the Republicans are good odds.
The senate is rather different, and I do think there's value in Beto to win Texas - there is some star quality there and I wonder whether the shy Trump factor might be reversed in Texas. I still expect Cruz to win but the odds are good so I've had a flutter. In the other direction New Jersey could see a major upset as the Dem incumbent has been embroiled in a corruption controversy. Like Texas, I expect him to hold on but the odds are attractive.
The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
There is no knowing at this point. We’re just down to gut feelings and opinion.
If one or the other side turns out its core voters in larger numbers than expected then it will look like a systemic polling error. Midterms are more about getting your core vote out than convincing the undecideds (although both are important). From reading articles from all sides of the political spectrum, my take is that the Republicans may be understated in the House race for the following reasons:
1. Republican enthusiasm appears to be sky high and I expect turn out to follow this. Early voting statistics back this up. 2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them. 3. The concentration of the Dem vote in big cities which may count against them in many House districts.
For that reason I have the House down as a toss up. The odds on a dem win in the house are just not attractive but if I can get anywhere close to evens I'd pile on the dems at that level. To me 6-4 on the Republicans are good odds...
Fortunately, I was betting on the Democrats back when they were close to evens. And I don’t think 6/4 is remotely attractive odds for the Republicans.
I don’t completely rule them out holding the House, but something around a 20% chance is more realistic.
. 2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them. .
I'd need some convincing of shy Trump voters given that the popular vote prediction was accurate in 2016.
Who is behind these contradictory briefings to the press, and why?
I assume it's jockeying for advantage in the final round - "you may have to give a little more to get a deal". But I do think we'll get something by next week, and it will wriggle through Parliament with lots of different interpretations.
What makes you think next week specifically?
Britain wants a deal in the coming week to avoid practical difficulties - apparently if it's delayed longer, all kinds of things need to be done in case of no deal. But also there's talk of an emergency summit to sign it off on Friday, which is such short notice that sadly there won't be a chance to consult Cabinet first. May will feel that's very regrettable, of course, but hey, she can always check with them after it's been agreed.
That's SO cynical that I'm not sure I believe it. But it was in one of the papers without the wry spin that I've added.
The statement should read "after passing many different combinations thru our model, our model yields a Dem House 89% of the time", not "the probability of a Dem House is 89%"
While that’s true, they have run several different models which give similar results. We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
We've had "systemic polling error" before; not just in 2015, but I seem to remember the 2004 Presidential Election being derailed by an unexpectedly high turnout from the poor resulting in a GWB victory. which begs the question; are we seeing indications that group X are underrepresented in the polls and for whom will group X vote? if @Alistair is right and there may be a Beto upset, then i'd like to know so i can put a shedload on Beto and look really smug.
There is no knowing at this point. We’re just down to gut feelings and opinion.
If one or the other side turns out its core voters in larger numbers than expected then it will look like a systemic polling error. Midterms are more about getting your core vote out than convincing the undecideds (although both are important). From reading articles from all sides of the political spectrum, my take is that the Republicans may be understated in the House race for the following reasons:
1. Republican enthusiasm appears to be sky high and I expect turn out to follow this. Early voting statistics back this up. 2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them. 3. The concentration of the Dem vote in big cities which may count against them in many House districts.
For that reason I have the House down as a toss up. The odds on a dem win in the house are just not attractive but if I can get anywhere close to evens I'd pile on the dems at that level. To me 6-4 on the Republicans are good odds.
The senate is rather different, and I do think there's value in Beto to win Texas - there is some star quality there and I wonder whether the shy Trump factor might be reversed in Texas. I still expect Cruz to win but the odds are good so I've had a flutter. In the other direction New Jersey could see a major upset as the Dem incumbent has been embroiled in a corruption controversy. Like Texas, I expect him to hold on but the odds are attractive.
If one or the other side turns out its core voters in larger numbers than expected then it will look like a systemic polling error. Midterms are more about getting your core vote out than convincing the undecideds (although both are important). From reading articles from all sides of the political spectrum, my take is that the Republicans may be understated in the House race for the following reasons:
1. Republican enthusiasm appears to be sky high and I expect turn out to follow this. Early voting statistics back this up. 2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them.
For that reason I have the House down as a toss up. The odds on a dem win in the house are just not attractive but if I can get anywhere close to evens I'd pile on the dems at that level. To me 6-4 on the Republicans are good odds.
The senate is rather different, and I do think there's value in Beto to win Texas - there is some star quality there and I wonder whether the shy Trump factor might be reversed in Texas. I still expect Cruz to win but the odds are good so I've had a flutter. In the other direction New Jersey could see a major upset as the Dem incumbent has been embroiled in a corruption controversy. Like Texas, I expect him to hold on but the odds are attractive.
I agree that Menendez will win in NJ but I think the margin may be closer than Dems might be comfortable with. His challenger, Bob Hugin, also has corruption scandals in his past, and in any case corruption allegations are sort of baked-in to NJ races and probably won’t move the needle too far on their own.
Menendez’s ads are portraying Hugin as a Trump mini-me and are highlighting his past as a pharma CEO claiming he ripped off cancer patients. Hugin has riposted with ads claiming Menendez slept with under-age prostitutes on visits to the Dominican Republic. That might well be very effective, but Trump and the GOP are pretty unpopular in NJ, not least because homeowners in the state are about to be clobbered by the new $10k cap on the state and local taxes federal income tax deduction. Hugin’s own positive ads make him so liberal-sounding that an uninformed voter might think he was the Democrat!
As to differential enthusiasm and turnout, the Dems tend to do worse in the midterms because the GOP is usually better at getting its (older and so more likely to vote) base out. So a super-enthused Republican turnout won’t necessarily work to their favour if the Democrats can get a super-enthused turnout too: the Dems have proportionally more latent votes to prise out than the Republicans which works to their favour if both parties do well with their GOTV operations.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
The Boris Johnson strategy? Beto as Bojo. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. It is a risky tactic: ask Boris. No, I expect 2024 or 2028 was always the plan.
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
Funnily enough, in a discussion at the pub this weekend, I floated Jocelyn Bell Burnell as the one.
I don’t buy the idea of O’Rourke losing as a liberal in order to have a shot at the Presidency. If he can’t deliver his state against a Senate opponent more widely disliked than Trump, what’s his argument for being the nominee in 2020 ?
I have a tiny bet on him for the nomination, but merely as a hedge for other bets.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
The Boris Johnson strategy? Beto as Bojo. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. It is a risky tactic: ask Boris. No, I expect 2024 or 2028 was always the plan.
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
Funnily enough, in a discussion at the pub this weekend, I floated Jocelyn Bell Burnell as the one.
BF has a market but it is crap. Only £20 so far.
She's still alive, so that surely puts her at a massive handicap?
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
The Boris Johnson strategy? Beto as Bojo. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. It is a risky tactic: ask Boris. No, I expect 2024 or 2028 was always the plan.
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
Funnily enough, in a discussion at the pub this weekend, I floated Jocelyn Bell Burnell as the one.
BF has a market but it is crap. Only £20 so far.
She would be a fine choice... except she’s still alive, so not eligible.
Does O'Rouke want to win ? Can you run for president more or less immeadiately after winning a Senate seat without looking like an utter careerist ? As a white man in a ' Red ' state he would balance a Harris ticket though he may just be too high wattage for the No 2 slot and Doug Jones ticks the same boxes while looking reassuring. Would O'Rouke be better served by losing by 0.5% ?
The Boris Johnson strategy? Beto as Bojo. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off. It is a risky tactic: ask Boris. No, I expect 2024 or 2028 was always the plan.
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
Funnily enough, in a discussion at the pub this weekend, I floated Jocelyn Bell Burnell as the one.
BF has a market but it is crap. Only £20 so far.
She would be a fine choice... except she’s still alive, so not eligible.
Comments
We’re looking for ‘systematic polling error’ to change the math - which isn’t impossible, of course... but unlikely.
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/257629354952871/UzpfSTI4NDIwNDgxMjoyMTkxNzYzMjE0NDEzMDMy/
The BBC is though my favourite news source, but occasionally ludicrously biased, and totally oblivious to criticism.
As far as I can see the newspaper news sources went off the boil long ago. I barely bother with them nowdays, although if somehow they reinvented themselves as news organs, albeit with patchy,delayed and incomplete coverage, I'd be a fan.
You can get some apparent depth with articles in (for example) the Economist. However when I know something about the area in which they write (say Economics) their coverage is so poor that I simply doubt their accuracy in other areas.
The Dems have a history of underwhelming in Texas but I do expect Texas to be blue within a decade.
Unlike the UK American polls are often hellishly light on precise demographic detail. Which is the kind of detail you need to make a good fist at unskewing the polls. Like, in 2016 the first question asked by Emerson College polling was "did you vote in the previous presidential election" and they immediatly stop the call if the respondent had not votes last time. Not even gathering demographic information of the non voter!
Like in 2015 people on here were able to work out the problems with the YouGov poll due to the detailed breakdowns they put out and fairly accurately unskew them. Without that for the USA polling I believe we are flying totally blind. And at that point for me I wouldn't be gambling I'd be guessing.
It's fair to say Channel 4 News is disproportionately expensive and long for a company it's size. It's one of the ways Channel 4 discharges it's heavier ' Public Service ' remit. It's also fair to say there's no conspiracy here. Channel 4 News is a classic premium and niche product in a mass market. Forced by law to offer something more expensive and extensive than it would otherwise do it makesca virture out of necessity and offers a quirky, niche, distinctive product to it's disproportionately younger audience.
I could understand PB Tories advocating privatisation of Channel 4 but not criticising a commercally orientated body for producing a product it's customer base likes.
Imagine a model. The model is a box with an imp inside it. The imp tosses a coin: if its heads he says "Cruz" and if its tails he says "Beto". The conscientious modeller runs 100,000 poll combinations thru it and after crunching the data says "the probability of Beto winning is 50%!". But that's obviously gibberish.
If the model accurately represents real-life, then the two sentences will line up (but still not mean the same thing!). If the model is inaccurate, then they'll deviate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/04/white-actor-identifies-black-criticised-winning-place-scheme/
We’re just down to gut feelings and opinion.
The dominance of the Bushes may well have made it appear more red than it really was. Remember there was a Bush, and therefore a Texan, on the Presidential ballot 6 out of 7 GEs. 1980-2004.
The Resistence needs some totty.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/two-faces-crucial-new-caledonia-s-final-referendum
It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 50 years since a Democratic senator was first elected to office in Texas - 1970. For most of Bentsen's time, the governorship also alternated between the two parties, and since 1968 it has only once voted Dem (and never since 1976).
So, again, a serious exaggeration to call it 'blue.'
This is not to say the Democrats cannot or will not win. It is to say it would be a major upset and a very significant victory. If Beto O'Rorke wins, he goes hot favourite for the Democratic nomination.
"Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you!"
A high profile win would propel him forward because he is a winner, not because he is a careerist. And given the mess the Dems and indeed the States are in, boy how they could do with some of that Obama stardust.
I don't think he will win, by the way.
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1202a2The2018Midterms.pdf
Interestingly the Democratic lead in that poll almost exactly matches the 51.9% to 44.9% the GOP led in the popular vote in 2010 the last time the House changed hands, just the GOP gained 63 seats which the Democrats are unlikely to match on Tuesday even if they do take control
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010
Edit - Bush carried nearly all of it in 1988, on checking.
Guarantees him a shot at the White House (though likely not this time around).
And I never quite understood why demonstrable fertility in either gender made 'ILFness' somehow less of a natural state and not more.
(& incidentally O’Rourke has been pretty vehement that he will serve a full Senate term if elected - which I think is smart if he really wants to be President.)
Who is behind these contradictory briefings to the press, and why?
They don’t pay for it - I do
On a majority basis 50:50 is only one percent from a deal. Close to 95% done.
Amanda Walker Sky correspondent to a Republican female voter
'The women on the left are mad'
Reply
'Yes - they are always mad'
Oh, and I reckon it will be Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who discovered pulsars, on the new nifty. Trouble is, she is not in the betting. Though given the way my punting has gone this weekend, that could be just as well.
OK.
1. Republican enthusiasm appears to be sky high and I expect turn out to follow this. Early voting statistics back this up.
2. The Shy Trump factor - of which there's an interesting piece in the Washington Post by Paul Theroux. Add to this that it appears from reading right wing blogs that there is a concerted effort on the right to either ignore pollsters or actively lie to them.
3. The concentration of the Dem vote in big cities which may count against them in many House districts.
For that reason I have the House down as a toss up. The odds on a dem win in the house are just not attractive but if I can get anywhere close to evens I'd pile on the dems at that level. To me 6-4 on the Republicans are good odds.
The senate is rather different, and I do think there's value in Beto to win Texas - there is some star quality there and I wonder whether the shy Trump factor might be reversed in Texas. I still expect Cruz to win but the odds are good so I've had a flutter. In the other direction New Jersey could see a major upset as the Dem incumbent has been embroiled in a corruption controversy. Like Texas, I expect him to hold on but the odds are attractive.
And I don’t think 6/4 is remotely attractive odds for the Republicans.
I don’t completely rule them out holding the House, but something around a 20% chance is more realistic.
That's SO cynical that I'm not sure I believe it. But it was in one of the papers without the wry spin that I've added.
Menendez’s ads are portraying Hugin as a Trump mini-me and are highlighting his past as a pharma CEO claiming he ripped off cancer patients. Hugin has riposted with ads claiming Menendez slept with under-age prostitutes on visits to the Dominican Republic. That might well be very effective, but Trump and the GOP are pretty unpopular in NJ, not least because homeowners in the state are about to be clobbered by the new $10k cap on the state and local taxes federal income tax deduction. Hugin’s own positive ads make him so liberal-sounding that an uninformed voter might think he was the Democrat!
As to differential enthusiasm and turnout, the Dems tend to do worse in the midterms because the GOP is usually better at getting its (older and so more likely to vote) base out. So a
super-enthused Republican turnout won’t necessarily work to their favour if the Democrats can get a super-enthused turnout too: the Dems have proportionally more latent votes to prise out than the Republicans which works to their favour if both parties do well with their GOTV operations.
BF has a market but it is crap. Only £20 so far.
But I am a comp scientist.
Although I did read earlier of idea of a three-way portrait with Lovelace, babbage and Turing.
Small market weirdness.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/04/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-texas-senate-2018-election-222188
I don’t buy the idea of O’Rourke losing as a liberal in order to have a shot at the Presidency.
If he can’t deliver his state against a Senate opponent more widely disliked than Trump, what’s his argument for being the nominee in 2020 ?
I have a tiny bet on him for the nomination, but merely as a hedge for other bets.