If Florida flips, as the polls are suggesting, then Trump is doomed – politicalbetting.com

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Alistair said:

.

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

Have we covered today’s Quinnipiac Texas poll?
Biden 47% (+2)
Trump 47% (-3)

Changes from 23rd September.

Quinnipiac had Hillary winning Florida and Pennsylvania in 2016 and Iowa tied, they lean Democrat

They lean D less than Trafalgar leans R.

Trafalgar were more right in the swing states in 2016 than Quinnipiac were

But it is s guy reading tealeaves rather than assimilating polling evidence. He was just lucky.

Someone in my school's dad won £330,000 on the football pools in 1971. He was lucky, but he was not an opinion pollster.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

another_richard said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

I suspect that the cost of housing is more important than the cost of food or energy.

OnboardG1 said:

another_richard said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

I suspect that the cost of housing is more important than the cost of food or energy.

Absolutely, the cost of housing is risible and is a real problem. But that shouldn't stop the government from taking a relatively small amount of expense (given they've been pissing money away at boondoggles for the last six months) which can at least relieve some of that poverty.

theakes said:

Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God.
PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318953044478971905?s=20

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318950068091785216?s=20

nichomar said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!

Typical Tory, they don’t like their greed and selfishness exposed by a mere footballer.

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

TheScreamingEagles said:

theenglishborn said:

kle4 said:

Barnesian said:

I'm beginning to plan for the US election night.
I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2.
I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested.
We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room.
What do you think?

Interesting idea. Midweek is a bad time for, damn american elections being on a Tuesday.

I know I will not sleep even if I wanted to, so booked the Wednesday off

Rookie mistake, you should also take off the Tuesday.

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.

It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.

It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.

It really depends on the player, in general the more they get paid the more likely there will be significant non paye earnings, but there are definitely Prem regulars fully on PAYE as well. Image rights have to reflect some commercial reality or HMRC will quickly come after them.

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

williamglenn said:

Benpointer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

theenglishborn said:

kle4 said:

Barnesian said:

I'm beginning to plan for the US election night.
I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2.
I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested.
We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room.
What do you think?

Interesting idea. Midweek is a bad time for, damn american elections being on a Tuesday.

I know I will not sleep even if I wanted to, so booked the Wednesday off

Rookie mistake, you should also take off the Tuesday.

And the rest of the week - given the possibility that nothing will be decided very quickly.

From the first occupation of a state capitol to the conclusion of the civil war could take several years.

Pulpstar said:

5.9 million implied turnout in WI from that poll lol

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.

I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.

But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.

rcs1000 said:

theakes said:

Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God.
PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .

I think it's really simple.

If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.

If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.

Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.

But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.

Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.

I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.

But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.

algarkirk said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?

Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?

Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?

Gary_Burton said:

Florida is an extremely weird state.

Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc

Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.

I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.

noneoftheabove said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

I really dont get it and am struggling to see any better motivation for it than it upsets the order of things for a very young man from a poor background to be active and influential in political society.

Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.

It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.

It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.

It really depends on the player, in general the more they get paid the more likely there will be significant non paye earnings, but there are definitely Prem regulars fully on PAYE as well. Image rights have to reflect some commercial reality or HMRC will quickly come after them.

Average EPL wage is now about 1.5 million a year now. If you look at most sports who are more open how they structure the same sort of size deals, the deal are overwhelming structured so they are still getting paid on the current contract 10 years down the line.

e.g. Patrick Mahomes recently signed $500 million deal, he is getting less than $1 million actual salary this year and they will still be paying the contract in 11 years time. Yes there are performance related elements to this, but it is also structured so he doesn't get more than $1.5 million for the next 3 years, and the big payments are when he has finished playing.

Benpointer said:

algarkirk said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?

Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?

Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?

We're not going to be borrowing it from our Grandchildren though are we - we're going to be printing more money, writing-off/re-structuring debt, letting inflation whittle it away or some combination of all three.

noneoftheabove said:

Mexicanpete said:

BluestBlue said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

I'm no believer in supertaxes on the rich ... but Rashford could just about persuade me that one should be imposed on him!

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

I really dont get it and am struggling to see any better motivation for it than it upsets the order of things for a very young man from a poor background to be active and influential in political society.

Having said that, its a widespread opinion amongst a section of the right, so ridiculous is unfair, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however misguided.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I guarantee that if this free holiday meals is extended while we have Covid, it will be with us for the next 10-15 years and probably expanded to basically everybody.

After covid, the reason will be high unemployment, then it will another reason and then it won't cost much more just to give to every kid

Now you might say it is a good idea anyway, but it is dishonest to claim it will just be for another couple of holidays.

We still have most of the Brown freebies despite supposed of nearly 10 years of austerity.

FrancisUrquhart said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

FPT footballers' wages.

Surely players are on PAYE and not paid via companies? There did used to be an issue where image rights (as opposed to salaries) were paid via companies but even that was ended in one of the Hammond budgets iirc.

No they aren't....nothing in sports finance is as it seems. They get a certain amount via PAYE, but most of it is wrapped up in image rights (paid to their company) and also a lot of is guaranteed paid in the future.

It is why you hear about during a transfer a player has demanded x for unpaid wages, its because this contract isn't say 3 years, its 3 years with the wages paid over many years into the future.

The clubs aren't depositing £500k a month into players accounts, nor do they pay £x million for a player, they arrange with a 3rd party finance company a deal again with the money spread over a very long time...and the selling club often then refinance other debt.

rawzer said:

rcs1000 said:

theakes said:

Mike here you go again, last Florida poll I saw had it tied, yesterday. Tonight Wisconsin, a tie, the problem for Biden is that |Jorgeson is picking up crucial votes. He is up to 5% there. Interestingly the pollsters Susqehana asked what do you think your neighbourts are voting. Trump ahead by 1. This is Wisconsin, absolutely crucial. I keep saying Trump is picking up where it matters. Next week he'll draw level in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Michigan. A small but crucial no of voters are going for the Libertarian Jorgeson as an alternative to Biden. 4 more years, God.
PS. IBD today Trump narfrowed gap from 7 to 2.3 which is the margin Clinton was ahead in 16 and we know what happened then. I recommend we ignore those national polls, they contain the huge Democrat leads where it does not matter, the East and Werst coast states.. .

I think it's really simple.

If Biden is four points or more ahead (nationally) on the day, then he's 90% likely to be the next President.

If we assume that polling is as inaccurate as in 2012 (the worst in the last half century), and that the error is in Trump's favour (bear in mind errors tend to oscillate), then Trump needs to bring the polling average down to 7% or less by November 3.

Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be a polling error in Trump's favour - it's equally likely it could be the other way around.

But that's the bare minimum - 7% in the national polling averages - on November 3, for Trump to have a real shot. And to be favourite, Trump needs to be at 3% or less on polling day.

Today he's at - using the average of 538 and RCP - around 9.3%. That's a 2.3% - 6.3% move he needs in the next two weeks. Watch the glide path: if he's on it (and IBD Tipp is encouraging for him), then he can win. But if he gets behind it, it's incredibly hard.

538 line is that the National Polls are a bit out of step with the state ones and the real lead is nearer 9 than over 10. Most of the high grade polls for Biden today I think are pretty good, bar the one that got Kaboomed. 2 different A grade pollsters showing Biden ahead in Iowa! A and B grade polls showing good leads in Penn and showing Texas tied. Yesterday good grade polls showing good leads in North Carolina. BTW Arizona has more EC votes than Wisconsin.

TimT said:

kle4 said:

You know how often companies pay huge fines without admitting wrongdoing (which of course is the reason they pay the fine), well I see that Purdue, the makers of OxyContin, are paying $8.3bn and pleading guilty to at least some criminal charges.

Just how hugely guilty must they have been to pay up and actually admit some wrongdoing?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54636002

My understanding is that they pushed the line that narcotics could be used for long term pain management with no fear of addiction, and paid doctors for prescribing Oxy, despite having research showing their claims to be false.

Stocky said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

OnboardG1 said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/10/16/d4e21/3

The polling suggests that it's a popular policy.

I'm sure but my point is more that it hasn't made it into the voluntary conversation like last time which means the government won't take a big hit by saying no.

There is a lot more news around right now which is probably washing it out. But I can't help but feel the government is just horribly in the wrong on this.

I like my friend's idea of helping those who are still on 80% or 67% of their wages, but beyond that the government shouldn't erode parental responsibility. I mean when does it stop, do we start giving out dinner vouchers as well because that's another, much more important meal and food poverty doesn't just stop at lunchtime.

I think it's sort of immoral when a family is so poor they have to decide whether to heat the house or give kids food. That is a parental responsibility that shouldn't ever have to happen, and frankly it's not because parents are feckless or on drugs. It's because they're losing their jobs thanks to COVID and the cratering economy. It is entirely reasonable for this Christmas, in a national emergency, to agree to keep the free school meals going.

Yes, which is why the compromise of keeping the additional support for people who are on the various jobs support schemes makes sense. Otherwise the state is taking responsibility away from parents.

I disagree. Help is not removing responsibility. Responsibility can only be discharged with capability. If you are incapable of supplying food for your children because you have no money, no job (or worse, a job that does not pay enough to support your family in the area where you live) then I don't hold that you can be held responsible for your children. By supplying some supplementary benefit (in this case school meals) to ameliorate that you are returning that responsibility to someone by giving them the capacity to discharge it. The only entity with the clout to do that is the state, and since children do not thrive in poverty it is contingent on the state to minimise that with short and long term measures. Therefore I believe the state should act.

But people in that situation already get a whole load of child related benefits for that reason. Child tax credits, child benefit, working tax credit and other forms of income support already exist as well as housing benefit. Those benefits are also extremely generous, it's that the parents haven't got the right spending priorities. I'm sure all of them have a fairly new iPhone and Sky TV but still claim poverty when it comes to keeping their own kids fed properly.

It is why I have always had concerns about UBI...it sounds good in theory, then we will get stories from the real world of hardship and before you know it new additional benefits schemes will be setup to try to help those and the process starts again.

There are other issues with Universal Benefit as well. A little-reported fact is that UB, unlike Tax Credits, is assessed against savings. You start to lose it at £6k and completely lose entitlement at £16k.

Parents who have taken advantage of the government`s initiative to invest for children via a Child Trust Fund (now Junior ISA) find out that their child reaches 18 and becomes old enough to claim Universal Benefit (if he/she, like many, especially after Covid, starts on minimum wage) is not eligible to claim UB because their parents took out CTF/JISA for him/her which the child, perhaps, didn`t even know about.

You may argue that if that person has £16k in savings they shouldn`t get UB anyway, which is fair enough and obviously what the government thinks, but my point is that this has not been well published and shows UB to be a different beast to tax credits. It was never supposed to be, they said, a tax-saving change.

Many adults have been caught out by this wealth assessment as well - going from tax credits to UB only to realise they have fallen into a trap. They find they no longer qualify for any benefit as they have over £16k and discover, furthermore, that it is impossible to move back onto tax credits once you`ve gone on to UB. So they lose their tax credits and gain no UB even though their circumstances are identical.

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

MikeSmithson said:

Barnesian said:

I'm beginning to plan for the US election night.
I'm going to be home alone in Tier 2.
I'll have PB for company and I'm idly thinking about setting up a Zoom meeting for anyone interested.
We'd need to rename ourselves with our PB handle in the waiting room.
What do you think?

Good idea

OK I'll set it up. I'll post the link here on the night.

I have a premium Zoom account so it won't run out of time.

I'll just leave it running. Come and go with your drinks and popcorn and betting tips.

That’s frustrating. I’d love to join you but unless schools are closed that week I obviously won’t be able to.

I do hope though I wake up just as a deep Red State is called for Biden...

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

Tres said:

MaxPB said:

Snapshot of real life on food vouchers - my Instagram index shows no action on it, no WhatsApp chatter either. Only seen one person in real life talk about it and they weren't 100% supportive, said that only people still on furlough should still get vouchers during holiday time.

On my internets I see a multi page thread calling for Rashford to get an MBE. ymmv

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1319007261725880320

slade said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/Kate_M_Proctor/status/1318987316082475015

Jason McCartney used to be a Liberal Democrat. He applied to be the PPC for Pudsey. When he was turned down he joined the Tories.

Tres said:

This Rudy Guilliani story on the other hand is proper popcorn stuff.

algarkirk said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1318985571180707840

The problem is that the Tories are incapable of seeing these kids as the future of the country. They're just another expense to be minimised, to keep the taxes down.

Is it possible to give a rational account of how in one of the world's most developed and prosperous countries which is borrowing about 200 bn a year extra cash as well it is possible for ordinary families to be going hungry when rice can be had for 40p a kilo. milk for £1 for 4 pints and loaves of bread for 50p?

Does Marcus Rashford or anyone else have an upper limit on how much we should be borrowing from our grandchildren to fund his schemes on top of everything else?

Our society after the current dreadful crisis is still far richer than we were in the foodbank free 60s 70s and 80s. How did we manage?

Malmesbury said:

The above is the entire reason to move to a UBI.

The problem comes when an army of people arrive with "Yes, but we need a special x to deal with y"

Before you know it, you have the complexity, inefficiency, stupidity and general waste of time equal to the American income tax system multiple by American health care.

Peter_the_Punter said:

Gary_Burton said:

Florida is an extremely weird state.

Biden should narrowly flip Duval county but strangely the real bellwether of whether Biden can narrowly flip Florida or not is if Biden can push Trump down towards 60% in Sumter county to offset potential increased Latino turnout for Trump places like Miami-Dade, Palm Beach etc

Bloomberg is really pouring in the money and it will be interesting to see if Biden can win it on the narrowly win it on the night or not if only by the same margin as 2012 or if Trump's home state advantage is too strong.

I'm leaning towards the former but I'm not so confident.

Yes, that's very much my take on Florida, although I would qualify it in one important respect. It is the Cuban-Americans who are crucial. They are generally (and understandably) hostile to anything they perceive as left-wing and although Biden is no Socialist it's easy for the GoP to portray him as such to these CAs.

I wish I knew how many of them there are, what's their voting record and just how fanatically pro-Trump they are. Absent such information, I would be wary of betting on Florida, even though the current odds (about evens) look attractive.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1318978457448185857