Biden’s national poll lead remains and the swing state surveys are looking positive – politicalbetti

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Depends which polls you look at, Rasmussen, the only national pollster apart from Google to correctly have a 2% Hillary lead in its final 2016 poll has Trump 1% ahead nationally in its latest poll.

Trafalgar, the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 has Biden picking up Pennsylvania but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin in its latest state polls

Why to you keep spouting this bullshit?

You know as well as the rest of us that virtually every pollster got the lead right within their margin of error. Rasmussen were no different.

Every election there's one pollster that happens to get lucky with a result that's closest to the actual result - it implies diddly-squat about their chances of getting lucky the next time.

Most polls are always right within margin of error, that is just back covering, it does not change the fact Rasmussen was closest to the national result and Trafalgar to the rustbelt swing state results.

In 2008 PPP were closest and they were closest in 2012 too, here Survation were closest in 2015 and 2017 and their final poll had an 11% Tory lead in 2019 as well

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FFS people stop panic buying

Stocking up for a couple of weeks of isolation is not panicking, it is prudent preparation.

Might head down to Sainsbury's today.

= empty shelves.

FFS calm down.

Sorry kids we have no food and you will be wiping your arse with your hands from now on, but at least daddy stayed calm when everyone else was losing their heads.

Yeah that'll see them in therapy for the next 20yrs. Meanwhile, all the supermarkets coped very well last time

They bloody didn't. Zero stocks on significant numbers of products, huge costs in trying to pull whatever stock they could find through the system, angry customers assaulting show workers.

Ah well I appreciate you would know. Still it is a herd thing. But I'm pretty sure it won't happen again given the real life training exercise last time. Or will it?!

Following on from my observation from yesterday that daytime TV loves booking Karol Sikora....

He's just been on This Morning, so the ouija board thoughts he made in June definitely haven't damaged the "Good" Professor's ability to reach the masses.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FFS people stop panic buying

Stocking up for a couple of weeks of isolation is not panicking, it is prudent preparation.

Indeed. But the reports aren't 2 weeks supply, its wipe the shelves clean again...

The thing that people don't seem to understand is that empty shelves are not, in the main, due to a few maniacs buying loads of stuff, but rather to many people buying a little more than usual.

My missus has been shopping this morning, and didn't notice much amiss, except that sterilised milk seemed to be running low. So she bought 3 instead of her usual 2 (to keep at work). Nothing wrong with that, you'd think. But lots of people acting in the same, logical fashion will soon clear the shelves of sterilised milk faster than the supermarket can restock it, giving the appearance of a shortage.

However, the difference this time round is that real shortages are a distinct possibility.

Your point was my point. Entirely understandable but if your wife had kept to her 3 packets all might be better if not entirely ok.

cf bank panics...

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

OK, I've cracked. I know you're not looking for sympathy, Dura Ace, but you have it anyway. I'm very sorry that your mother has had what would probably have been another few years of healthy life taken from her by this disease, and I hope that goes some way towards making people realise what letting the virus rip actually means.

IanB2 said:

Northern_Al said:

Sad news, Dura Ace; commiserations.

The "it's not much worse than flu", "why are we locking down?", "we're ruining the economy for nothing", "we need to sacrifice the old and vulnerable if necessary" contingent seem to be rather quiet on here this morning.

He is still sleeping off yesterday's intake. I was surprised his comment wasn't moderated out.

There is more than one person in that contingent.

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Any Boris fans like to defend this?

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1308395631275372545?s=20

Yes. He gave a detailed, serious and reasoned response.

There is no statistical evidence to show that Italy has a better testing regime than the UK - they are doing a fraction of the tests we are per capita and have a higher positivity rate in their tests than we do. People like you might like to complain about our testing system, but you'd be complaining even more if those figures were reversed.

That could be because the Italian model is working less well than the UK's, or it could be that their triage is more effective, and they are getting the information they need from a smaller number of tests. I'm not sure how you tell those possibilities apart.

The sheer number of tests the UK is doing is genuinely impressive. But it's still a factor of 10 or 100 below what would be needed to test people on the off-chance; hence the moonshot plan. If the tests aren't being given to the right people and giving timely results (one of mine is off school because of an outbreak), then the number of tests is a Soviet boot production statistic. Numerically true, but not fully meaningful.

HYUFD said:

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

Biden doing worse than Hillary in California but better in Washington state
https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/1308624598519472128?s=20

OK, so what I'm scratching my head about is, compared to Hillary, Biden seems to be strong with white people, low-education people, and older people. He might be a little bit weaker with high-education white people, black people and latino people. Have I got this right?

Shouldn't this favour him in the mid-west compared to Hillary? If so, why is his deficit in the tipping point states compared to his national polling the same as her (actual) deficit or bigger? Doesn't it seem more likely that his electoral college deficit is actually smaller, and either the state polling in the mid-west (or at least PA) has over-corrected, or the national polling (and potentially the polling in AZ/TX) is overstating his support?

Yes, Biden is doing better than Hillary with non college educated whites, worse than Hillary with the rich and worse than Hillary with Hispanics and about the same with Blacks, though Trump is doing fractionally better with them too.

So that suggests the EC will be closer than last time but Trump has a better chance of winning the popular vote

"EC vote will be closer" - why?:

Last time the EC was a 0.4% swing away from Clinton winning, not sure why it would be closer this time.

"Trump has a better chance of winning the popular vote"

Of course Trump has a better chance than last time of winning the popular vote as he has a 0% chance of winning the popular vote last time (last time already happened - even you would have to admit this).

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Depends which polls you look at, Rasmussen, the only national pollster apart from Google to correctly have a 2% Hillary lead in its final 2016 poll has Trump 1% ahead nationally in its latest poll.

Trafalgar, the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 has Biden picking up Pennsylvania but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin in its latest state polls

Why to you keep spouting this bullshit?

You know as well as the rest of us that virtually every pollster got the lead right within their margin of error. Rasmussen were no different.

Every election there's one pollster that happens to get lucky with a result that's closest to the actual result - it implies diddly-squat about their chances of getting lucky the next time.

Most polls are always right within margin of error, that is just back covering, it does not change the fact Rasmussen was closest to the national result and Trafalgar to the rustbelt swing state results.

In 2008 PPP were closest and they were closest in 2012 too, here Survation were closest in 2015 and 2017 and their final poll had an 11% Tory lead in 2019 as well

Remind me again, how did Rasmussen do in 2012? How did PPP do in 2016?

Peter_the_Punter said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Biden doing worse than Hillary in California but better in Washington state
https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/1308624598519472128?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308622469222281216?s=20

The last California state poll had Biden up 29 in a state Clinton carried by 31 so it's not much for the Democrats to worry about. As you say, Washington with a 22 point Biden lead is a 3% swing to the Democrats from the 2016 result.

I'd like to see a poll from Alaska (last poll had Trump ahead by 3 in a state he won by 14 in 2016) and from Nebraska where the second district went for Trump by just two in 2016.

As long as the National Polls remain more or less where they are and have been for weeks, the California poll can be interpreted as good for Biden. It suggests he is not piling up votes uselessly in States he is certain to win anyway.

I think there's lots of noise in the polling, last time round in California there was a Dem-Dem senate race so little reason for GOP to turn out particularly if they were in a very lopsided congressional district.

Does anyone know if the Schengen "90 days in 180" applies to hauliers too? If the French Immigration Control has to check that, that could considerably add to delays - if its more than "6 months remaining on passport" which is the change most will face (until the ESTA comes in...)

TOPPING said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FFS people stop panic buying

Stocking up for a couple of weeks of isolation is not panicking, it is prudent preparation.

Do you not think that the supermarkets will be doing the same thing? Why would you need to?

If Isolating, then shouldn't be shopping!

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.

For the resources we’ve thrown at it, our testing is deeply unimpressive.
We could be doing a far better job.

And what ‘world beating’ regime have we developed ?
The new rapid antigen tests aren’t from here; pooled testing was successfully implemented months ago but several countries; there are literally dozens of new testing modalities being looked at - how many British ones have been deployed ?
Even the swabs come from Italy.

I find the need of many to assume that we are somehow uniquely incompetent or inept every bit as depressing and occasionally irritating as those booming out that we have the best of this and that for no good reason other than to make themselves and presumably us feel better. Surely we can just recognise the realities with a certain humility and look to learn lessons from others where appropriate as I hope they learn from us.

I don't assume we are uniquely inept.
It is fairly obvious, though, that in some aspects of our pandemic response, we have been pretty poor, and our test, track and trace system - given the resources that have gone in to it - falls into that category.
And in this we have conspicuously failed to implement lessons from elsewhere.

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Dura_Ace said:

So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

Sorry for your loss.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/financialtimes/status/1308657348412682242?s=21

One area we've been genuinely world beating at, vaccines. I for one am glad to see us at the top of this chart

I might take all seven of those.

All at once is not recommended.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Any Boris fans like to defend this?

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1308395631275372545?s=20

Yes. He gave a detailed, serious and reasoned response.

There is no statistical evidence to show that Italy has a better testing regime than the UK - they are doing a fraction of the tests we are per capita and have a higher positivity rate in their tests than we do. People like you might like to complain about our testing system, but you'd be complaining even more if those figures were reversed.

In Italy there is the key step of pre-test doctor sign off. Meaning tests are better targeted, the casually curious or regularly hypochondriac are steered away, and people aren't waiting ages or driving hundreds of miles.

Same in our part of Spain GP authorizes tests, nurse or doctor come round and do them after surgery (yes you can actually see a doctor at the monument although still a lot of telephone consults) at your home. Although there aren’t many tests being done at present as there are very few people with symptoms.

Dura_Ace said:

So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

My deepest condolences to you on your loss.

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Any Boris fans like to defend this?

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1308395631275372545?s=20

Yes. He gave a detailed, serious and reasoned response.

There is no statistical evidence to show that Italy has a better testing regime than the UK - they are doing a fraction of the tests we are per capita and have a higher positivity rate in their tests than we do. People like you might like to complain about our testing system, but you'd be complaining even more if those figures were reversed.

That could be because the Italian model is working less well than the UK's, or it could be that their triage is more effective, and they are getting the information they need from a smaller number of tests. I'm not sure how you tell those possibilities apart.

The sheer number of tests the UK is doing is genuinely impressive. But it's still a factor of 10 or 100 below what would be needed to test people on the off-chance; hence the moonshot plan. If the tests aren't being given to the right people and giving timely results (one of mine is off school because of an outbreak), then the number of tests is a Soviet boot production statistic. Numerically true, but not fully meaningful.

The Italian messaging on who should get a test is very clear, either it's when you get contacted by the trace team or if you have very specific symptoms. Everyone who doesn't have a prior appointment from the trace team gets a temperature check before getting swabbed, if you don't have a high temperature then you get sent away.

Those small steps filters out a huge number of people who don't need to be tested and are there because someone they know coughed in their vicinity.

The major issue we have with the UK testing regime is that we haven't taken best practices from other countries such as temperature based screening for self-certifed appointments and clear consistent messaging on who needs a test and who doesn't and messaging for schools and employers on who should be sent home for isolation and who shouldn't.

Everything around testing in the UK is completely muddled, the messaging, who actually gets one and where the capacity is deployed. Once again, none of this stuff is difficult to fix but we have incompetents in charge.

RH1992 said:

Following on from my observation from yesterday that daytime TV loves booking Karol Sikora....

He's just been on This Morning, so the ouija board thoughts he made in June definitely haven't damaged the "Good" Professor's ability to reach the masses.

Did one challenge him to explain his earlier prediction ?

MaxPB said:

Stuartinromford said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Any Boris fans like to defend this?

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1308395631275372545?s=20

Yes. He gave a detailed, serious and reasoned response.

There is no statistical evidence to show that Italy has a better testing regime than the UK - they are doing a fraction of the tests we are per capita and have a higher positivity rate in their tests than we do. People like you might like to complain about our testing system, but you'd be complaining even more if those figures were reversed.

That could be because the Italian model is working less well than the UK's, or it could be that their triage is more effective, and they are getting the information they need from a smaller number of tests. I'm not sure how you tell those possibilities apart.

The sheer number of tests the UK is doing is genuinely impressive. But it's still a factor of 10 or 100 below what would be needed to test people on the off-chance; hence the moonshot plan. If the tests aren't being given to the right people and giving timely results (one of mine is off school because of an outbreak), then the number of tests is a Soviet boot production statistic. Numerically true, but not fully meaningful.

The Italian messaging on who should get a test is very clear, either it's when you get contacted by the trace team or if you have very specific symptoms. Everyone who doesn't have a prior appointment from the trace team gets a temperature check before getting swabbed, if you don't have a high temperature then you get sent away.

Those small steps filters out a huge number of people who don't need to be tested and are there because someone they know coughed in their vicinity.

The major issue we have with the UK testing regime is that we haven't taken best practices from other countries such as temperature based screening for self-certifed appointments and clear consistent messaging on who needs a test and who doesn't and messaging for schools and employers on who should be sent home for isolation and who shouldn't.

Everything around testing in the UK is completely muddled, the messaging, who actually gets one and where the capacity is deployed. Once again, none of this stuff is difficult to fix but we have incompetents in charge.

One major issue here is that if you have any covid type symptoms schools expect you to be checked so that you can either return or (if required) they can isolate the year.

nichomar said:

TOPPING said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

FFS people stop panic buying

Stocking up for a couple of weeks of isolation is not panicking, it is prudent preparation.

Might head down to Sainsbury's today.

= empty shelves.

FFS calm down.

Sorry kids we have no food and you will be wiping your arse with your hands from now on, but at least daddy stayed calm when everyone else was losing their heads.

Yeah that'll see them in therapy for the next 20yrs. Meanwhile, all the supermarkets coped very well last time

They bloody didn't. Zero stocks on significant numbers of products, huge costs in trying to pull whatever stock they could find through the system, angry customers assaulting show workers.

Ah well I appreciate you would know. Still it is a herd thing. But I'm pretty sure it won't happen again given the real life training exercise last time. Or will it?!

The same selfish people will be at the front of the queue, not a second thought for anybody else, seems to be quite prevalent in the UK these days.

A slight increase in purchases over the next couple of months in order to build up kitchen stock before the end of the year is both entirely sensible and in the public interest, IMO.
It will forestall much last minute panic buying which might otherwise be inevitable in November/December.

Dura_Ace said:

So I finally know somebody who has died from covid, sadly it was my 81 year old mother.

She fell over in her garden a couple of weeks ago, went to hospital for a precautionary x-ray, caught the rona there and was dead 11 days later.

I mention this not to solicit sympathy or commiserations but make two illustrative points. To those who advocate letting it rip because it mainly affects older people I offer a hearty FUCK YOU. Secondly, my mother was usually very careful with hygiene, etc but obviously not careful enough so it behooves us all to take all sensible precautions at all times and never relent.

My sincere condolences.

kinabalu said:

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

According to 538 the current tipping point state is Pennsylvania, where Biden has a lead of 4% which means a 2% swing would make it neck-and-neck in the electoral college.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.

For the resources we’ve thrown at it, our testing is deeply unimpressive.
We could be doing a far better job.

And what ‘world beating’ regime have we developed ?
The new rapid antigen tests aren’t from here; pooled testing was successfully implemented months ago but several countries; there are literally dozens of new testing modalities being looked at - how many British ones have been deployed ?
Even the swabs come from Italy.

I find the need of many to assume that we are somehow uniquely incompetent or inept every bit as depressing and occasionally irritating as those booming out that we have the best of this and that for no good reason other than to make themselves and presumably us feel better. Surely we can just recognise the realities with a certain humility and look to learn lessons from others where appropriate as I hope they learn from us.

I don't assume we are uniquely inept.
It is fairly obvious, though, that in some aspects of our pandemic response, we have been pretty poor, and our test, track and trace system - given the resources that have gone in to it - falls into that category.
And in this we have conspicuously failed to implement lessons from elsewhere.

And, to make @DavidL feel better, I would happily point out that we have run clinical trials during the pandemic probably better than anywhere else in the world.
The efficiency of the Recovery trial in generating significant results has been remarkable.

Japanese firm launches world's first UV lamp that safely kills coronavirus
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/22/national/japan-first-uv-lamp-kills-coronavirus/

Potentially very promising, particularly if the price can be brought down.

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Any Boris fans like to defend this?

https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1308395631275372545?s=20

Yes. He gave a detailed, serious and reasoned response.

There is no statistical evidence to show that Italy has a better testing regime than the UK - they are doing a fraction of the tests we are per capita and have a higher positivity rate in their tests than we do. People like you might like to complain about our testing system, but you'd be complaining even more if those figures were reversed.

Doesn't that just raise the possibility that numbers are not everything, and that Italy may be targeting better?

At times the numbers sound very much like Tractor stats, divorced from what is happening on the ground.

Nigelb said:

Japanese firm launches world's first UV lamp that safely kills coronavirus
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/22/national/japan-first-uv-lamp-kills-coronavirus/

Potentially very promising, particularly if the price can be brought down.

Boris will implement a £100tn scheme to zap the UK with UV from space. Galaxy leading!

https://twitter.com/FLAHAULT/status/1308315109635358720

Jonathan said:

eristdoof said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Jonathan said:

When it comes to COVID why do people want to be “world beating”? It’s a term we keep hearing. When you think about it, it’s just plain weird and self defeating.

Surely when it comes to the development of vaccines we all have an interest in all countries succeeding. Surely when it comes to track and trace, there is nothing to be gained from having a better system then your neighbours. You need them all to be good, if they are not it presents a risk. If a country finds something that works you share it for the benefit of all.

If the government simply aimed to discover, develop and implement the best possible protection for its citizens, we might do better.

Because competition works Jonathan to make improvements.

World beating things the UK has developed, like our best in the world testing capacity and our best in the world vaccine orders help develop testing procedures and vaccine capabilities that can apply elsewhere too.

There absolutely is something to be gained from seeking to have a better system than your neighbours, both for you and your neighbours. Especially if they're trying to be the best too then they are innovating and improving which you can learn from. This doesn't mean sabotaging others.

Competition is fantastic.

There have also been many races to the bottom in the name of competition.
Competition is fantastic in some situations but certainly not in all.

The point is that even if you think the COVID response is a competition you rarely win the competition by focusing on your competitors.

I get the impression that this desire to be ‘world beating’ stems from the same lack of self confidence that brought us Brexit. The right are desperate to prove something.

And this, we're just crap at everything, from those desperate to prove the reverse.

We are nowhere near as good as we like to claim. Quite a lot of our public institutions and services are really rather second-rate and could be very much better than they are. On reason they’re not as good as they could and ought to be is because we spend too much time extolling past glories, patting ourselves on the back, assuming we’re great, not looking dispassionately at the realities and refusing to learn from others.

rottenborough said:

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

What's keeping me off the spreads is the possibility of serious interference with the polls - false rumours, discarded postal votes, ridiculous queues, etc. That will still be a worry even if Biden is leading by 6 on pollig day.

Yep.

I'm beginning to think the polling may be near useless as there are so many unknowns in this one.

The unknowns certainly increase volatility, but they dont make the polling redundant - somewhere around the polling is still the best guesstimate.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1308674077075427328

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gallowgate said:

@Philip_Thompson the claim that any other country would want to copy our testing regime is very funny.

Considering we're testing more per capita than any other large country on the entire planet, I don't see the joke.

For the resources we’ve thrown at it, our testing is deeply unimpressive.
We could be doing a far better job.

And what ‘world beating’ regime have we developed ?
The new rapid antigen tests aren’t from here; pooled testing was successfully implemented months ago but several countries; there are literally dozens of new testing modalities being looked at - how many British ones have been deployed ?
Even the swabs come from Italy.

I find the need of many to assume that we are somehow uniquely incompetent or inept every bit as depressing and occasionally irritating as those booming out that we have the best of this and that for no good reason other than to make themselves and presumably us feel better. Surely we can just recognise the realities with a certain humility and look to learn lessons from others where appropriate as I hope they learn from us.

I don't assume we are uniquely inept.
It is fairly obvious, though, that in some aspects of our pandemic response, we have been pretty poor, and our test, track and trace system - given the resources that have gone in to it - falls into that category.
And in this we have conspicuously failed to implement lessons from elsewhere.

And, to make @DavidL feel better, I would happily point out that we have run clinical trials during the pandemic probably better than anywhere else in the world.
The efficiency of the Recovery trial in generating significant results has been remarkable.

As an indicator of severity of disease, numbers of new Recovery trial enrolment is a good one.

Heartfelt condolences @Dura_Ace .

rottenborough said:

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

What's keeping me off the spreads is the possibility of serious interference with the polls - false rumours, discarded postal votes, ridiculous queues, etc. That will still be a worry even if Biden is leading by 6 on pollig day.

Yep.

I'm beginning to think the polling may be near useless as there are so many unknowns in this one.

It's not so much the polling, its more who is going to be allowed to vote and whose vote will actually be counted at the end of the day.

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Hungary, here we come ...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Depends which polls you look at, Rasmussen, the only national pollster apart from Google to correctly have a 2% Hillary lead in its final 2016 poll has Trump 1% ahead nationally in its latest poll.

Trafalgar, the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 has Biden picking up Pennsylvania but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin in its latest state polls

Why to you keep spouting this bullshit?

You know as well as the rest of us that virtually every pollster got the lead right within their margin of error. Rasmussen were no different.

Every election there's one pollster that happens to get lucky with a result that's closest to the actual result - it implies diddly-squat about their chances of getting lucky the next time.

Most polls are always right within margin of error, that is just back covering, it does not change the fact Rasmussen was closest to the national result and Trafalgar to the rustbelt swing state results.

In 2008 PPP were closest and they were closest in 2012 too, here Survation were closest in 2015 and 2017 and their final poll had an 11% Tory lead in 2019 as well

Remind me again, how did Rasmussen do in 2012? How did PPP do in 2016?

PPP was right when Obama was on the ballot, they identified his vote and above average black turnout in both 2008 and 2012.

In 2016 Rasmussen and Trafalgar were best at identifiying Trump's vote, especially amongst non college educated whites, they may be best again on that basis in 2020

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

What's keeping me off the spreads is the possibility of serious interference with the polls - false rumours, discarded postal votes, ridiculous queues, etc. That will still be a worry even if Biden is leading by 6 on pollig day.

I think that works in both directions though. Aside from the possibility that Trump has put together a brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy, involving all kinds of organizations he doesn't control, there's the possibility that he's gone and told his own electorate, consisting mainly of the elderly, not to vote by post, and there's a huge pandemic, so once they see a queue they're going to give up and go home. Meanwhile the Dems have got half their vote out by post already, their polling stations aren't too busy, and their GOTV has already mostly GOTVed, so they can concentrate on the people who are left.

This could make quite wacky things happen in the House and Senate and statewide races as well.

Nigelb said:

Japanese firm launches world's first UV lamp that safely kills coronavirus
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/22/national/japan-first-uv-lamp-kills-coronavirus/

Potentially very promising, particularly if the price can be brought down.

Mr Donald Trump 24th April 2020
"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light," the president said, turning to Dr Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response co-ordinator, "and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it.

"And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting," the president continued.
Media captionDonald Trump criticised Georgia’s governor for reopening

"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

"So it'd be interesting to check that."

Anabobazina said:

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

Most pubs still shut at 11, and some pubs were shutting later than 11 even before the law changes. Its a much higher proportion after 11 now than before, but 11 is still the default.

Very sorry to hear about your mother @Dura_Ace.

I absolutely agree with you that most normal people will do whatever it takes to protect the ones we love. Letting the virus rip is just not an option.

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

Most pubs still shut at 11, and some pubs were shutting later than 11 even before the law changes. Its a much higher proportion after 11 now than before, but 11 is still the default.

I think it depends on whether you live in a city, particularly one with a large student population. If you don't 11 is absolutely the norm. If you do you wonder what people are talking about.

edmundintokyo said:

NickPalmer said:

kinabalu said:

On topic -

Trump has drifted a little - around 2.3 now - but based on all of the evidence at our disposal I cannot for the life of me price him at shorter than 3.5. If the polls in early Oct - after the 1st debate on the 29th Sep - have not tightened significantly I expect the Trump price to collapse. I think it might happen quite dramatically when it does. Rather like a market crash as the penny drops with lots of people at about the same time.

What's keeping me off the spreads is the possibility of serious interference with the polls - false rumours, discarded postal votes, ridiculous queues, etc. That will still be a worry even if Biden is leading by 6 on pollig day.

I think that works in both directions though. Aside from the possibility that Trump has put together a brilliantly orchestrated conspiracy, involving all kinds of organizations he doesn't control, there's the possibility that he's gone and told his own electorate, consisting mainly of the elderly, not to vote by post, and there's a huge pandemic, so once they see a queue they're going to give up and go home. Meanwhile the Dems have got half their vote out by post already, their polling stations aren't too busy, and their GOTV has already mostly GOTVed, so they can concentrate on the people who are left.

This could make quite wacky things happen in the House and Senate and statewide races as well.

Against that, more Dem ballots WILL be chucked than GOP (Simply due to the higher mail in rates). But yes mail in does lead to a higher propensity, as the US has abysmally long queues.
They dramatically overengineer their elections, the time honoured British simplicity of a pencil, paper and spare village hall is vastly superior to the US voting machines.

BTW it's worth flagging that there is a minor difference between the Sporting Index ECV markets and the Supremacy market. The Supremacy market will be voided if either Biden or Trump has to withdraw, whereas the standard ECV markets will be voided only if the one named candidate withdraws. I can't see that that justifies the price discrepancy, though.

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Biden doing worse than Hillary in California but better in Washington state
https://twitter.com/ActorAaronBooth/status/1308624598519472128?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1308622469222281216?s=20

The last California state poll had Biden up 29 in a state Clinton carried by 31 so it's not much for the Democrats to worry about. As you say, Washington with a 22 point Biden lead is a 3% swing to the Democrats from the 2016 result.

I'd like to see a poll from Alaska (last poll had Trump ahead by 3 in a state he won by 14 in 2016) and from Nebraska where the second district went for Trump by just two in 2016.

Yes, I feel Alaska is underpolled.

Anabobazina said:

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

Because most of us are tucked up in bed well before and have no idea when pubs close, innit?

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Hungary, here we come ...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

As was stated on here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/09/18/does-the-internal-markets-bill-compromise-work/

“Look at the clause trying to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. This is a further clear breach of the WA. It seeks to stop any legal challenge to how it uses its powers; it plans to stop people with private rights given to them under the WA but taken away by this Bill from going to court to seek a remedy. Will such an ouster clause work? There is some doubt: leaving citizens without any legal remedy may in itself be a breach of the Human Rights Act. In any event, the courts are very resistant to any attempt to prevent the courts even considering whether a power is being used lawfully. Previous attempts to do so have not been successful.

Regardless of what the outcome of such legal challenges might be, the government might well regard this too as a “win”: a battle with the judges, with human rights, with EU courts (remember the EU has reserved the right to take legal action against the British government) plays well into a mindset of Britain battling against obstructive foreigners and lawyers. And it helps provide yet further justification for what the government has already clearly signalled it wants to do: restricting or eliminating any scrutiny of – or legal restraints on – its actions.“

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Depends which polls you look at, Rasmussen, the only national pollster apart from Google to correctly have a 2% Hillary lead in its final 2016 poll has Trump 1% ahead nationally in its latest poll.

Trafalgar, the only pollster to correctly have Trump ahead in Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 has Biden picking up Pennsylvania but Trump still ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin in its latest state polls

Why to you keep spouting this bullshit?

You know as well as the rest of us that virtually every pollster got the lead right within their margin of error. Rasmussen were no different.

Every election there's one pollster that happens to get lucky with a result that's closest to the actual result - it implies diddly-squat about their chances of getting lucky the next time.

Most polls are always right within margin of error, that is just back covering, it does not change the fact Rasmussen was closest to the national result and Trafalgar to the rustbelt swing state results.

In 2008 PPP were closest and they were closest in 2012 too, here Survation were closest in 2015 and 2017 and their final poll had an 11% Tory lead in 2019 as well

Remind me again, how did Rasmussen do in 2012? How did PPP do in 2016?

PPP was right when Obama was on the ballot, they identified his vote and above average black turnout in both 2008 and 2012.

In 2016 Rasmussen and Trafalgar were best at identifiying Trump's vote, especially amongst non college educated whites, they may be best again on that basis in 2020

You have absolutely no idea about that second statement as neither Rasmussen or Trafalgar release detailed crosstabs.

They only crosstabs Trafalgar released showed Trump winning the 18-24 age group massively across multiple states.

DavidL said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Hungary, here we come ...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/23/ronan-cormacain-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill-and-breach-of-domestic-law/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

It's quite simple: if you value democracy and the rule of law, you cannot supprt the Internal Market Bill.

What if you value democracy and the rule of law domestically but think that international law is more shall we say guidelines?

Read the article, Phil. The bill does away with the rule of law domestically as it puts the government above the law.

As does the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act puts itself above other laws blanketly and doesn't specifically repeal or disapply those laws it does so sweepingly. This Bill is just as important and follows the same precedent.

No, this legislation gives the government unlimited power to do as it wishes with no recourse to law. The Human Rights Act does not do that. Application of the Human Rights Act is subject to judicial scrutiny. The Internal Market Bill specifically rules judicial scrutiny out.

Unlimited power? Are you for real? It is a bill regulating the internal transfer of goods within the UK, that's it. The bill is a very bad idea in my opinion but please, a sense of proportion.

Yes, unlimited power, David. All a minister need do is make an order under section 45 of the Act and it cannot be challenged - not even the decsion to invoke section 45 in the first place. That is unlimited power as it puts the minister above the rule of law.

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

Most pubs still shut at 11, and some pubs were shutting later than 11 even before the law changes. Its a much higher proportion after 11 now than before, but 11 is still the default.

Evidence required.

Very few pubs in London close at 11pm

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

IanB2 said:

Second!

FPT

IanB2 said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/StokeyLitFest/status/1308649092986408960

The sub-heading says it all:

He thought making it upriver would fulfil his dream – instead it’s turned into a cruel form of humiliation

Although I liked the description of Cummings as Johnson’s emotional support psycho

Today, British people were invited to enjoy the spectacle of Johnson shutting pubs – for an hour – and the irony of being hectored that they are “in the last chance saloon” by the very people who herded them back to the saloon and bought them half-price lunches there.

YET AGAIN

Boris has NOT shut the pubs FOR AN HOUR.

Pubs haven't closed at 11pm for a generation – the law was changed 15 years ago.

FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Why is the fiction endlessly repeated on PB and elsewhere?

Most pubs still shut at 11, and some pubs were shutting later than 11 even before the law changes. Its a much higher proportion after 11 now than before, but 11 is still the default.

Some pubs shut earlier than 11pm – my country pub fave closes at 10pm every night – yet thousands of pubs hold licences to 12am, 1am and in some cases beyond that, and have done so for a generation.

This is particularly true in larger cities, where much of the revenue is generated later in the evening.

The idea that "pubs close at 11pm" is a work of fiction.

Thousands open much later than that.