If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
But there's no sign of a direct Mid-West v Texas swing. In fact this time we're seeing a greater than Uniform National Swing to the Democrats in both the Mid-West and Texas are we not?
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
My assumption is that Biden is outperforming the long-term trend in the Mid-West.
Perhaps. Though if Biden wins then the Democrats would be smart to learn lessons and ensure future nominees target the midwest and other swing states more than the coasts.
They should work out what can be done to grow cities in Idaho, Montana, Kansas, the Dakotas, etc
If the Trumpites are suppressing the vote in Texas, they are worried.
If Texas flips, it is an EV landslide, and probably also puts Republicans at an EV /PV disadvantage rather than Democrats.
If Biden wins Texas it will be because he's at least 8 points ahead in the national vote. It wouldn't change the Electoral College disadvantage for the Democrats.
But Texas is longterm trending blue.
If Texas flips long-term so that its won ahead of the national vote then it absolutely will.
1. That's a different issue to the Democrats winning Texas this time.
2. Whether it changes the Electoral College balance depends on what the compensating changes in other States are. If the Democrats take Texas in exchange for winning California by a narrower margin then that would be a big win. If the exchange is that they lose more MidWest States by narrow margins then the net change is nil* in the Electoral College (and a further big loss in the Senate).
The Democrat obsession with Texas is infantile and self-defeating.
* Could even be a net loss in the Electoral College. PA, WI, MI & MN are 56 ECVs to 38 for Texas.
It isn't infantile at all, since there's no reason that doing better in Texas would cause hurt in the Midwest. Actually this year the Democrats are doing better in the Midwest and Texas, and relatively worse in California - which is the absolute sweet spot for them to be at.
Flipping Texas and making Texas a swing state makes a massive difference to the Electoral College . . . plus of course even if they don't win it, by making it a swing state then it puts the GOP on the back foot where they need to move heaven and earth to keep Texas in their column as they're screwed if they lose it.
Yes. I did say it would be a big win if the votes were shifted from California. But that's the crucial contingency. And, over the last few election cycles, unfortunately the change has been against the Democrats in the Mid-West.
If they exchange four more states in the Mid-West for Texas then they're another six senators behind. A par result in the Senate would almost give the Republicans enough Senators to convict any Democrat President elected by California-Texas-New York.
The Democrats would be beyond screwed.
But there's no sign of a direct Mid-West v Texas swing. In fact this time we're seeing a greater than Uniform National Swing to the Democrats in both the Mid-West and Texas are we not?
Last time Texas was lost by 9% with a 2% national victory so on UNS it should require >11% to make Texas swing. Instead it looks like 8% will be sufficient, which continues a trend that has been going on for a long time. In another decade at this rate crossover will be reached.
My assumption is that Biden is outperforming the long-term trend in the Mid-West.
If I was looking at a long-shot state to flip to Biden I'd choose Louisiana. The last polling in early September had Trump up by six but that was from a state he won by twenty last time. Not worth your mortgage but a couple of quid at what I'm sure would be a big price.
Arkansas too. It hasn't been polled since June, and was 45 Biden Trump 47, and if anything the movement in the polls has been in Bidens direction too.
Biden 12 on BFx at present.
If Arkansas goes Democrat this time, I'll give you the money myself.
Being realistic, Trump won Arkansas by 27% in an election where he lost the popular vote by 2%. Biden won't be spending any money there, and the Senate race doesn't even have a Democrat candidate, let alone a competitive one. A single weird poll in June doesn't mean Biden has a better than 1 in 12 chance - he barely has a 1 in 100 chance, frankly.
If you want a weird state Biden may win, look at one where Demcrats are actually campaigning due to a Senate race - South Carolina and Alaska (I know he's not technically a Democrat but won their primary). Even then, I'd not remortgage your house.
If I was looking at a long-shot state to flip to Biden I'd choose Louisiana. The last polling in early September had Trump up by six but that was from a state he won by twenty last time. Not worth your mortgage but a couple of quid at what I'm sure would be a big price.
Arkansas too. It hasn't been polled since June, and was 45 Biden Trump 47, and if anything the movement in the polls has been in Bidens direction too.
Biden 12 on BFx at present.
If Arkansas goes Democrat this time, I'll give you the money myself.
Being realistic, Trump won Arkansas by 27% in an election where he lost the popular vote by 2%. Biden won't be spending any money there, and the Senate race doesn't even have a Democrat candidate, let alone a competitive one. A single weird poll in June doesn't mean Biden has a better than 1 in 12 chance - he barely has a 1 in 100 chance, frankly.
If you want a weird state Biden may win, look at one where Demcrats are actually campaigning due to a Senate race - South Carolina and Alaska (I know he's not technically a Democrat but won their primary). Even then, I'd not remortgage your house.
538 says 6 in 100 chance.
538 gives 6 in 100 for Trump to win Oregon. That isn't happening either. I think a feature of the model is it's a bit generous to the underdog in underpolled states, so is a bit fishy in uninteresting places.
'Ferrier' may of course be parsed as an archaic form of the present passive infinitive of 'fero', thus meaning 'to be carried' or, idiomatically, 'to ride'.
It would be lovely to think that an effective vaccine would be available in significant quantities that soon - because basically we'd only have to put up with this one long, crappy Winter and then they'd probably have all of the most vulnerable people sorted by next Spring, which ought to allow us to dispense with pretty well all of the Covid restrictions - but colour me sceptical on this one. As has oft been commented upon before, vaccines appear as a mirage: always shimmering on the horizon, but never becoming a reality, let alone getting any closer to us.
Sir Keir is approaching is Dave v. Ed leads in this the best PM ratings in relation to the VI
We're on course for a Labour minority government right now.
And, we haven't even got to 2021 yet.
Do these things progress in a straight line?
Thinking anyone has a clue what the composition of the next parliament will look like is too laughable for words. In January 2019 not many posters on here would have predicted that Boris would end the year as PM with an overall majority of 80.
That isn't what was said was it? She informed the whips she was positive on Wednesday but then they only found out when she took the test/was symptomatic today.
Probably not, though if an agreement is somehow reached it'll probably end up being torpedoed by a technical dispute over fishing quotas in the Flemish regional parliament, or some such similar thing.
I am sure there will be a big rebellion against any further measures - people just wont have it.
The polling so far says otherwise. The disease could go either way at the moment; on the one hand it seems to be easing off, on the other winter is coming with photo ops of overwhelmed hospitals.
What is the point in negotiating when you are starting a legal action because the other party is breaking the agreement.
There is nothing to say. No point in a press conference.
It's a
s l o w
legal process - we have to reply within a month - and if at the end of October the bigger question of whether there is a deal or not will be a lot clearer. Similarly the bill is not being rushed through the UK Parliament.
One might think you'd be disappointed if there was a deal......
I am sure there will be a big rebellion against any further measures - people just wont have it.
The polling so far says otherwise. The disease could go either way at the moment; on the one hand it seems to be easing off, on the other winter is coming with photo ops of overwhelmed hospitals.
On the one hand, polling which says that the public is mad-keen on more and harder lockdowns. On the other, survey evidence suggesting that four-fifths of those testing positive for Covid don't bother to isolate properly.
Asking the public whether Covid restrictions are a good thing is a bit like asking the public whether taxes should go up in order to throw more money at the NHS. Most of them agree with the proposition, but only on the unspoken understanding that none of the burden should fall upon them, because they are special.
(In other words, there's not going to be some kind of insurrection against more and more layers of rules, people will simply do their best to ignore them whilst trying not to get caught and punished.)
What is the point in negotiating when you are starting a legal action because the other party is breaking the agreement.
There is nothing to say. No point in a press conference.
It's a
s l o w
legal process - we have to reply within a month - and if at the end of October the bigger question of whether there is a deal or not will be a lot clearer. Similarly the bill is not being rushed through the UK Parliament.
One might think you'd be disappointed if there was a deal......
I really do not give a d*mn. Honestly.
The process has so much idiocy and stupidity in it that I have decided it can only be a badly produced comedy show. No other explanation makes sense. So I comment purely on its ability to entertain me.
What is the point in negotiating when you are starting a legal action because the other party is breaking the agreement.
There is nothing to say. No point in a press conference.
Quite right, no one negotiates with an unreliable counter party.
Yet the negotiations continue.
Nothing will be signed until the internal market bill is scrapped.
You could not be more wrong.
Nothing will be implemented until the internal market bill is scrapped. The internal market bill will not be scrapped until a deal is signed.
This is not a Catch 22. There is a very clear dance going on here, the EU and UK [if possible] will sign a deal, the EU will say the deal can not be implemented without the IM Bill being fixed, the UK will say the IM Bill is redundant due to the deal, so the IM Bill will be fixed and the deal implemented.
If a deal can't be reached the IM Bill stands. The EU do not want that.
I am sure there will be a big rebellion against any further measures - people just wont have it.
The polling so far says otherwise. The disease could go either way at the moment; on the one hand it seems to be easing off, on the other winter is coming with photo ops of overwhelmed hospitals.
On the one hand, polling which says that the public is mad-keen on more and harder lockdowns. On the other, survey evidence suggesting that four-fifths of those testing positive for Covid don't bother to isolate properly.
Asking the public whether Covid restrictions are a good thing is a bit like asking the public whether taxes should go up in order to throw more money at the NHS. Most of them agree with the proposition, but only on the unspoken understanding that none of the burden should fall upon them, because they are special.
(In other words, there's not going to be some kind of insurrection against more and more layers of rules, people will simply do their best to ignore them whilst trying not to get caught and punished.)
People ignoring the law wholesale is by the very definition mass civil disobedience and therefore a type of insurrection
Comments
https://twitter.com/rogerlwhite/status/1311714062900891651?s=20
https://twitter.com/rogerlwhite/status/1311714076553347073?s=20
https://twitter.com/rogerlwhite/status/1311714078478434314?s=20
Or is that a coincidence and they'd have done that anyway?
And that's all I have to say about that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-54375643
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1311769417466945541?s=20
This is not a very lethal disease, and people should not be expected to sacrifice all forms of social interaction in order to combat it.
The government has spent a lot of time jumping at shadows.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/10/01/timeline-of-margaret-ferriers-movements-after-experiencing-covid-19-symptoms/
A worrying increase in cases of selective amnesia in Scotland.
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1311779028982992896?s=19
There is nothing to say. No point in a press conference.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1311775570477318144?s=19
Anyway, if a deal is in sight the bits of the internal market bill wouldn't be necessary.
s l o w
legal process - we have to reply within a month - and if at the end of October the bigger question of whether there is a deal or not will be a lot clearer. Similarly the bill is not being rushed through the UK Parliament.
One might think you'd be disappointed if there was a deal......
Some are going to be terribly disappointed if there is a deal.......
Asking the public whether Covid restrictions are a good thing is a bit like asking the public whether taxes should go up in order to throw more money at the NHS. Most of them agree with the proposition, but only on the unspoken understanding that none of the burden should fall upon them, because they are special.
(In other words, there's not going to be some kind of insurrection against more and more layers of rules, people will simply do their best to ignore them whilst trying not to get caught and punished.)
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1311781389264736262?s=20
Unless "the Deal" is a customs union, customs will be required in the Irish Sea, and Dover of course.
The process has so much idiocy and stupidity in it that I have decided it can only be a badly produced comedy show. No other explanation makes sense. So I comment purely on its ability to entertain me.
https://twitter.com/MrRBourne/status/1311714875979243520?s=20
Nothing will be implemented until the internal market bill is scrapped. The internal market bill will not be scrapped until a deal is signed.
This is not a Catch 22. There is a very clear dance going on here, the EU and UK [if possible] will sign a deal, the EU will say the deal can not be implemented without the IM Bill being fixed, the UK will say the IM Bill is redundant due to the deal, so the IM Bill will be fixed and the deal implemented.
If a deal can't be reached the IM Bill stands. The EU do not want that.