Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

At the 2018 midterms, the last time US pollsters were tested in national elections, the Democrat mar

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2020 in General
imageAt the 2018 midterms, the last time US pollsters were tested in national elections, the Democrat margin was 1.1% better than predicted – politicalbetting.com

 

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.
  • RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    The article's they highlight are 'interesting' to say the least. There's frequently stuff from the likes of the Federalist and American Greatness promoted on the main page.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    The NYT has a good summary of 2018 polling not based on RCP. (You may need to hit escape a lot to get past the paywall).
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/upshot/polls-2018-midterms-accuracy.html

    There's still a bias in favour of Dem, but it's very small, only 0.4 points. However, the regional bias from 2016 doesn't appear to have been entirely fixed at that point:
    image
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2020

    RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    The article's they highlight are 'interesting' to say the least. There's frequently stuff from the likes of the Federalist and American Greatness promoted on the main page.
    It's always had right-wing commentary but it used to have right-wing commentary combined with thorough, near-neutral aggregating of polls. (IIRC there might have been a bit of an imbalance in their treatment of partisan pollsters but it wasn't much in the grand scheme of things.)

    I'm not sure their poll aggregation is even biased now, it's just shite.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199
    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Another excellent thread from Mike. I've also picked up the Florida one.

    I put down more money on Florida yesterday. The odds, whilst not as zinging as Texas, make it a fantastic bet in my opinion.

    This is a case of normalcy bias outmatching the polling and other evidence. There's money to be made even now on an election just 11 days away.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    kamski said:

    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.

    Clinton had many flaws so you can't pin it on that. I have left-leaning American friends who were almost gunning for Trump, or at least could see why at that time he appealed to disaffected working class people. Clinton never touched them. She wouldn't even deign to visit some of the poorer districts.

    I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,199

    kamski said:

    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.

    Clinton had many flaws so you can't pin it on that. I have left-leaning American friends who were almost gunning for Trump, or at least could see why at that time he appealed to disaffected working class people. Clinton never touched them. She wouldn't even deign to visit some of the poorer districts.

    I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
    Hmmm. And yet polling shows Biden doing much better than Clinton with men, and the same with women.
    Biden is a candidate with many flaws.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.

    Clinton had many flaws so you can't pin it on that. I have left-leaning American friends who were almost gunning for Trump, or at least could see why at that time he appealed to disaffected working class people. Clinton never touched them. She wouldn't even deign to visit some of the poorer districts.

    I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
    Hmmm. And yet polling shows Biden doing much better than Clinton with men, and the same with women.
    Biden is a candidate with many flaws.
    You're spotting one thing and fixating on it to the exclusion of all else, which is what conspiracists do.

    Hillary Clinton gave the air of a privileged member of the Washington elite at a time when parts of America were on their knees and ripe for Trump's 'drain the swamp' meme. Clinton had the political air of someone who walks around with a nasty smell under her nose.

    Of course there are some men who couldn't abide the idea of a woman in leadership, just as there were some whites who couldn't abide the idea of an African-American President. But to reduce the former defeat or the latter victory to those single issues is over simplistic and deeply flawed. There were many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost. She never 'got' the problems in the rust belt, just as Remainers never clued up to the disaffection in white working class areas that weren't part of the metropolitan elite Brussels gravy train.

    The main point right now is that this is 2020 not 2016. Circumstances are very different. Bet accordingly.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2020
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.

    Clinton had many flaws so you can't pin it on that. I have left-leaning American friends who were almost gunning for Trump, or at least could see why at that time he appealed to disaffected working class people. Clinton never touched them. She wouldn't even deign to visit some of the poorer districts.

    I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
    Hmmm. And yet polling shows Biden doing much better than Clinton with men, and the same with women.
    Biden is a candidate with many flaws.
    Being a woman was a core part of Clinton's message ("highest, hardest glass ceiling" etc) so if Biden's getting the same score with women without that message, what that tells you is that either Biden is beating Hillary with women in other ways and the lack of Glass Ceiling Appeal is taking him back to parity, or that one of Hillary's core messages was a total waste of space. I think both options take you back to the same place: Sexism may have been a factor, but Biden is a generally better candidate.
  • kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Everything confirms what we already knew- sexism lost Clinton the presidency.

    Clinton had many flaws so you can't pin it on that. I have left-leaning American friends who were almost gunning for Trump, or at least could see why at that time he appealed to disaffected working class people. Clinton never touched them. She wouldn't even deign to visit some of the poorer districts.

    I repeat what Mike has been attempting to get through to people: 2020 is not 2016. Everything about it is different. Bet for now not for then.
    Hmmm. And yet polling shows Biden doing much better than Clinton with men, and the same with women.
    Biden is a candidate with many flaws.
    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    AND if you think there has EVER been a candidate for President of the United State without "many flaws" then buddy would LOVE to give you a real deal on some of the finest beachfront property in the State of Wyoming.

    As for Hillary, she was an acquired taste that I and millions of others, including many Democrats, never acquired.

    Thing that REALLY made me allergic was the way she screwed up health care reform in the US, thanks in large measure by her gross political ineptitude. Which turned out to be serial, chronic and HIGHLY adverse.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Time for a betting tip. Kansas Senate race.

    One of the unlikeliest battles is taking place for the US Senate in, wait for it, Kansas. Yep. Kansas. It looks to be on a knife-edge with latest polls and certainly fundraising suggesting that Democrat Barbara Bollier might pull off one of the biggest shocks of the night. The latest reliable poll had the candidates neck and neck.

    You can get 11/5 with Betfair on her taking the seat. Worth a flutter. I'm on her to win.

    https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Health-Care-Could-Be-Deciding-Factor-in-Close-Kansas-Senate-Race.pdf

  • Another excellent thread from Mike. I've also picked up the Florida one.

    I put down more money on Florida yesterday. The odds, whilst not as zinging as Texas, make it a fantastic bet in my opinion.

    This is a case of normalcy bias outmatching the polling and other evidence. There's money to be made even now on an election just 11 days away.

    12 days, surely? Counting days is one of those things that is surprisingly difficult, the closer you get. Christmas Eve is one day before Christmas, but not at ten to midnight it isn't. In this case, time zones add another layer of confusion. For some Americans, today is still yesterday, at least at the time of writing, so they might count 13 days.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Another excellent thread from Mike. I've also picked up the Florida one.

    I put down more money on Florida yesterday. The odds, whilst not as zinging as Texas, make it a fantastic bet in my opinion.

    This is a case of normalcy bias outmatching the polling and other evidence. There's money to be made even now on an election just 11 days away.

    12 days, surely? Counting days is one of those things that is surprisingly difficult, the closer you get. Christmas Eve is one day before Christmas, but not at ten to midnight it isn't. In this case, time zones add another layer of confusion. For some Americans, today is still yesterday, at least at the time of writing, so they might count 13 days.
    :smiley:

    You're right: 12 or even 13. I picked up '11' from one of the American newswires.

    Mind you, with 1/4 of votes already cast there's another issue about how we phrase 'voting day.'
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited October 2020


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    All depends where he stood on Roe v Wade :smiley:

    Mind you, the Pope has thrown a stone into the millpond on another matter which seems to vex Christians nearly as much.
  • Time for a betting tip. Kansas Senate race.

    One of the unlikeliest battles is taking place for the US Senate in, wait for it, Kansas. Yep. Kansas. It looks to be on a knife-edge with latest polls and certainly fundraising suggesting that Democrat Barbara Bollier might pull off one of the biggest shocks of the night. The latest reliable poll had the candidates neck and neck.

    You can get 11/5 with Betfair on her taking the seat. Worth a flutter. I'm on her to win.

    https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Health-Care-Could-Be-Deciding-Factor-in-Close-Kansas-Senate-Race.pdf

    She is former Republican-turned-Democrat, driven out of the GOP by the dominance of the (rigtht-) wing-nuts. A common affliction in the Sunflower State that has (like other disease vectors) been spreading like wildfire under Trumpsky.

    And while her GOP opponent is not a right-winger, he's pretty much a lightweight, at least a a potential US Senator. So Bollier has a path to victory, based on:
    > Democrats energized to vote against Trump are also enthusiastically voting for her.
    > Swing Independents AND moderate Republicans voting for her as best qualified personally to be US Senator
    > Conservative Republicans pissed off by defeat in primary who either vote for her out of spite or (more likely) just skip the race
    > Anti-Trump momentum that is boosting turnout AND could - potentially - maybe - perhaps - possibly - help float a LOT of boats for deserving Democrats, including in unlikely locales such as Kansas.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Time for a betting tip. Kansas Senate race.

    One of the unlikeliest battles is taking place for the US Senate in, wait for it, Kansas. Yep. Kansas. It looks to be on a knife-edge with latest polls and certainly fundraising suggesting that Democrat Barbara Bollier might pull off one of the biggest shocks of the night. The latest reliable poll had the candidates neck and neck.

    You can get 11/5 with Betfair on her taking the seat. Worth a flutter. I'm on her to win.

    https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Health-Care-Could-Be-Deciding-Factor-in-Close-Kansas-Senate-Race.pdf

    She is former Republican-turned-Democrat, driven out of the GOP by the dominance of the (rigtht-) wing-nuts. A common affliction in the Sunflower State that has (like other disease vectors) been spreading like wildfire under Trumpsky.

    And while her GOP opponent is not a right-winger, he's pretty much a lightweight, at least a a potential US Senator. So Bollier has a path to victory, based on:
    > Democrats energized to vote against Trump are also enthusiastically voting for her.
    > Swing Independents AND moderate Republicans voting for her as best qualified personally to be US Senator
    > Conservative Republicans pissed off by defeat in primary who either vote for her out of spite or (more likely) just skip the race
    > Anti-Trump momentum that is boosting turnout AND could - potentially - maybe - perhaps - possibly - help float a LOT of boats for deserving Democrats, including in unlikely locales such as Kansas.
    Yep agreed Sea Shanty. Great points. She's doing very well on health issues. It's really interesting that she is significantly outperforming the Presidential race (the reverse situation of Texas, therefore). I think she's in with a real shout.

  • Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    Can't see former altar boy Joe sinning in such a pagan way, attacking Our Lord, fer Jaysus sake!

    As for juvenile (and adult) delinquent Donald, on the other hand, no problemo - fire up the blowtorch!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    Pretty clear that Jesus would repeal the Second Ammendment.

    I reckon "render unto Caesar" means confiscatory levels of taxation too.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Supreme Court just machine gunning out the voter suppression rulings.

    https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1319072235454402561?s=19
  • https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Foxy said:


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    Pretty clear that Jesus would repeal the Second Ammendment.

    I reckon "render unto Caesar" means confiscatory levels of taxation too.
    How does that square with those that preach the prosperity gospel?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited October 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:


    That's surely the most relevant election though? I don't see why you wouldn't compare to 2016, rather than 1880.

    You certainly want to give more weight to 2016 than 1880, but if you ignore everything except 2016 then your sample size is limited to 1, and it's very hard to make useful predictions from a sample of 1.
    If you keep posting LOGIC and stiff like that, then I will need to swing the ban hammer.
    You are at a festival. You and your mate buy pills from the same vendor. More virtuously, you are foraging for mushrooms. You pick what you are pretty certain a rare and delicious species of cep. Your mate takes the pill/eats the mushrooms and shortly afterwards goes into convulsions. Do you say "Yebbut look at the sample size, where's the control, where's the blinding, what was the predefined primary endpoint, have you looked at potential confounders?" Or does stone cold inductive logic permit you to make valid predictions about the likely consequences of you eating the pill/mushrooms? Is it quite easy or very hard to make those predictions?
    Eh?

    Two pills from the same batch are the same as two elections four years apart?
    Same vendor, same time does not imply same batch. In assuming it does you powerfully make my point about the value of contemporaneity between samples. Say I have 4 pills of aspirin B.P. One I bought yesterday, one 4 years ago (now a year out of shelf life), one from 1950 I found in a house clearance, one dated 1898 from the Wellcome Collection. That's a sample, a slightly iffy sample and two historical curiosities, not four samples.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    Stocky said:

    Foxy said:


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    Pretty clear that Jesus would repeal the Second Ammendment.

    I reckon "render unto Caesar" means confiscatory levels of taxation too.
    How does that square with those that preach the prosperity gospel?
    Very poorly! The "prosperity gospel" is an abomination.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Foxy said:


    Joe Biden is NOT running against Jesus Christ, he's running against Donald Trumpsky. For Christ's sake.

    I think either Trump or Biden would beat Jesus Christ convincingly, can you imagine the attack ads?
    Pretty clear that Jesus would repeal the Second Ammendment.

    I reckon "render unto Caesar" means confiscatory levels of taxation too.
    Not disagreeing, but he didn't really think through the parable of the talents, did he?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,227
    edited October 2020

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
  • https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    There is that, the Desmond/Jenrick affair, the diversion of funds into Tory constituencies. From financial corruption to the erosion of our democratic norms that has gone on under both parties but is accelerating now, like the attacks on the judiciary and plain old lying. Rules are for the little people. Once Trump is over (or reelected, who knows?) government supporters should take a closer look at those things they rightly condemn in America to check they are not also happening here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    edited October 2020

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!

    I do like 538's snake. It is one of the best visual aids as to where the fight is that I have seen I think that our constituencies are probably too numerous and too small (with dodgy constituency polling) but I would like to see someone have a go. As you say, the current battleground is well above the 270 winning line for Biden. When NC, Georgia and Texas are the TCTC states Trump has lost bigly.

  • DavidL said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!

    I do like 538's snake. It is one of the best visual aids as to where the fight is that I have seen I think that our constituencies are probably too numerous and too small (with dodgy constituency polling) but I would like to see someone have a go. As you say, the current battleground is well above the 270 winning line for Biden. When NC, Georgia and Texas are the TCTC states Trump has lost bigly.

    I really like the snake too. It's one of the quickest and easiest ways to see how things are going. The Silver team put the figures in pretty quick and leave very few out, unlike RCP.
    Their averages are much more reliable as a result.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591

    Another excellent thread from Mike. I've also picked up the Florida one.

    I put down more money on Florida yesterday. The odds, whilst not as zinging as Texas, make it a fantastic bet in my opinion.

    This is a case of normalcy bias outmatching the polling and other evidence. There's money to be made even now on an election just 11 days away.

    Just to encourage you...
    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1319095503771045889
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
  • TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    Sending Bernie to Texas would likely be counterproductive.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    edited October 2020

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    But if Trafalgar are right* on Michigan and Wisconsin... (and then extrapolating the resulting polling error to all other states Biden is projected to flip, even those where Trafalgar was wrong last time)


    *taking their best poll for Trump ignoring the possibility of MoE and disregarding any that don’t quite get him over the line...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    Sending Bernie to Texas would likely be counterproductive.
    I guess they need Bernie to fire up the radical left youngsters who were, at least a few months ago, hanging back on centrist grandad Biden.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    I`m guessing the focus on PA is due to the low numbers of early voting there. A lot still to play for.
  • TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    Sending Bernie to Texas would likely be counterproductive.
    I guess they need Bernie to fire up the radical left youngsters who were, at least a few months ago, hanging back on centrist grandad Biden.
    It makes sense to use everyone and take nothing for granted, but the last place I'd deploy Bernie is a traditionally Republican stronghold like Texas.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    Stocky said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    I`m guessing the focus on PA is due to the low numbers of early voting there. A lot still to play for.
    Yeah, sounds like most of his Texas vote has already voted!

    Still where hasn’t Trump pulled ads from?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    Alistair said:

    Supreme Court just machine gunning out the voter suppression rulings.

    https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1319072235454402561?s=19

    A very reasoned dissent from Sotomayor. No reasoning at all from Thomas, of course, as it’s not required, but I’d be interested to hear how one might justify his choosing to refer this particular application to to the court and then vote to grant it.

    More generally, I’d be interested to hear what are the constitutional principles which the conservative justices claim to espouse that justify their constant activist tinkering with the electoral process.

    https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319096538736582657
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,916
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    Supreme Court just machine gunning out the voter suppression rulings.

    https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1319072235454402561?s=19

    A very reasoned dissent from Sotomayor. No reasoning at all from Thomas, of course, as it’s not required, but I’d be interested to hear how one might justify his choosing to refer this particular application to to the court and then vote to grant it.

    More generally, I’d be interested to hear what are the constitutional principles which the conservative justices claim to espouse that justify their constant activist tinkering with the electoral process.

    https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319096538736582657
    It sounds like the existing nine judges might be a little light in terms of their knowledge of constitutional law. Perhaps it would help if there were a couple more people on the court to help guide them to better decisions. 😉
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    "beyond our political and media class, the arguments traded during this Manchester stand-off have made lockdown scepticism not only socially acceptable but, increasingly, the just cause.

    A wholesale change of strategy must surely be on the cards."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/21/manchester-should-mark-beginning-theend-senseless-lockdown-mania/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    So easily. When I was a solicitor I had a lot of farming clients. The representative of the broker would go into their field with them, occasionally dig up a random sample and then shake hands on what the price per tonne was going to be for his crop, whatever it came in at, a few months later. Not saying it didn't keep me in business mind!
  • Stocky said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    I`m guessing the focus on PA is due to the low numbers of early voting there. A lot still to play for.
    It's simpler than that. It's very difficult for either candidate to win without Pa. Much more difficult for Trump, it's true, but difficult enough for Biden too.

    Biden's lead is currently only about 6 points. That's not overly comfortable, as Hillary could tell you.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    alex_ said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    But if Trafalgar are right* on Michigan and Wisconsin... (and then extrapolating the resulting polling error to all other states Biden is projected to flip, even those where Trafalgar was wrong last time)


    *taking their best poll for Trump ignoring the possibility of MoE and disregarding any that don’t quite get him over the line...
    You are treating Trafalgar as if they are a polling organisation, not a guy in his mother's basement making some informed guesses.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    A priest friend of mine once said to me that he was always amazed at how many Christians were less concerned about the homeless dying on the streets than they were about where someone puts their dick.

    https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1318936333801426945
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098
    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    It looks to me as, back when they were panicking about the shortage of proper PPE, they just phoned round their own personal business mates, and agreed to buy whatever they could supply.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098

    Stocky said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    I`m guessing the focus on PA is due to the low numbers of early voting there. A lot still to play for.
    It's simpler than that. It's very difficult for either candidate to win without Pa. Much more difficult for Trump, it's true, but difficult enough for Biden too.

    Biden's lead is currently only about 6 points. That's not overly comfortable, as Hillary could tell you.
    If the polling methodology is good, a lead of six points in a poll of conventional size in a two horse race ought to be pretty conclusive.
  • DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    So easily. When I was a solicitor I had a lot of farming clients. The representative of the broker would go into their field with them, occasionally dig up a random sample and then shake hands on what the price per tonne was going to be for his crop, whatever it came in at, a few months later. Not saying it didn't keep me in business mind!
    I was always taught that oral contracts were binding in English law. Has that changed?

    There is of course a problem in proving what was said, but if that is not in dispute I believe the contract is binding.
  • The rationale of the Supreme Court is simple. Allowing people to vote Democrat is a threat to the due democratic process of the United States and must be stopped.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,227
    edited October 2020
    IanB2 said:

    Stocky said:

    TimT said:

    I am still expecting a wave election, with an EC landslide victory for Biden.

    Judging by the specifics of the EV I suspect you may be disappointed come November 3rd.
    RCP's no toss-ups map gives it 367/181, so a gentle wave rather than a tsunami. As PBers have figured however RCP is not quite what it used to be and 538 is probably a better guide.

    Nate Silver's site goes 345/193 so similar ballpark but a bit less blue. Note though where the 'front line' is. There are five States where the average polling shows the candidates to be within 3 points of each other - NC/Ga/Iowa/Ohio/Texas. This is not where Trump wants to be fighting the battle. He wants it down around Pa but Biden is 6points clear there and it gets much worse for him as you go on down the line of States where he wants to be attacking - in Wisconsin he is also down 6, and in Nev/Min/Mich it's down 8. NH he's down 10 and out of it.

    It's going to take a huge effort, probably some luck or a mighty fickle electorate for Trump to get the front line down where it needs to be for him. By contrast, a ripple of three points in Biden's favour picks up five juicy targets and takes his ECV vote well over 400.

    Now that would be a wave!
    Well...good luck with that!

    As I said i'm more interested in how people are actually voting, plenty of evidence the polling may be...a bit off.

    Not to mention the Biden campaign has pulled ads from TX, and have sent not just Obama but also Bernie to "safe" PA.
    I`m guessing the focus on PA is due to the low numbers of early voting there. A lot still to play for.
    It's simpler than that. It's very difficult for either candidate to win without Pa. Much more difficult for Trump, it's true, but difficult enough for Biden too.

    Biden's lead is currently only about 6 points. That's not overly comfortable, as Hillary could tell you.
    If the polling methodology is good, a lead of six points in a poll of conventional size in a two horse race ought to be pretty conclusive.
    538 puts the chances at 86/14 in Biden's favor but Nate doesn't just use the poll numbers in arriving at that assessment. He would take account of other factors, such as the polling history in the State. For example, Trump hasn't got within three points of Biden throughout the campaign. Biden's lead has been very steady. It would truly remarkable if Trump were somehow to get his nose in front for the first time on Election Day.

    My money is on Biden. I'm not worried about Pa - Florida yes, Michigan at a pinch but Biden's home state? I'm sure he'll win that, and the Presidency. The margin could be anything from a whisker to a landslide though.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,351
    edited October 2020

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    So easily. When I was a solicitor I had a lot of farming clients. The representative of the broker would go into their field with them, occasionally dig up a random sample and then shake hands on what the price per tonne was going to be for his crop, whatever it came in at, a few months later. Not saying it didn't keep me in business mind!
    I was always taught that oral contracts were binding in English law. Has that changed?

    There is of course a problem in proving what was said, but if that is not in dispute I believe the contract is binding.
    Two issues: oral contracts are binding except where the law says they are not - lots of transactions relating to land etc.

    Though oral contracts are made all the time (even wordless ones where you buy a newspaper with cash managing not to exchange a single word with the vendor - quite easy early in the morning at a busy place) in transactions of any magnitude or complexity courts are very slow to believe the evidence that a contract has been so made.

    In particular cultures - farming, the City of London, it is easy to envisage a genuine habit of large oral contracts.

  • algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    So easily. When I was a solicitor I had a lot of farming clients. The representative of the broker would go into their field with them, occasionally dig up a random sample and then shake hands on what the price per tonne was going to be for his crop, whatever it came in at, a few months later. Not saying it didn't keep me in business mind!
    I was always taught that oral contracts were binding in English law. Has that changed?

    There is of course a problem in proving what was said, but if that is not in dispute I believe the contract is binding.
    Two issues: oral contracts are binding except where the law says they are not - lots of transactions relating to land etc.

    Though oral contracts are made all the time (even wordless ones where you buy a newspaper with cash managing not to exchange a single word with the vendor - quite easy early in the morning at a busy place) in transactions of any magnitude or complexity courts are very slow to believe the evidence that a contract has been so made.

    In particular cultures - farming, the City of London as it once was, it is easy to envisage a genuine habit of large oral contracts

    Noted with thanks. So I wasn't so far out. I remembered it from my tax law days. Memory circuits not too badly shot. :)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,684

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    They really are an evil bunch. Throwing shovelfuls of money to their pals and yet they cannot find a few million to feed hungry children, how do these people sleep at night. Luckily the Scottish Government has used some of their pocket money to ensure it is not the case in Scotland despite the Tories best efforts.
    Even more sick is that the Scottish Tory MP's voted against hungry English children getting a hot meal, it is just unbelievable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,039
    On topic, I'm pretty relaxed about the national polling - Biden is going to win the voteshare comfortably.

    It's how that stacks up in the states where the uncertainty is for me - I could see anything from a narrow win to a landslide 400+ ECVs, and there isn't necessarily much in it.

    I'm spreading my betting far and wide on those, with a decent spread buy on 285-ups so I can capitalise/not lose very much.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    https://twitter.com/PrivateEyeNews/status/1318848269305417728

    Open corruption. They don't even try to hide it any more

    That slurping sound you hear is the pigs in the public funds trough.
    How can you have a contract, let alone an open-ended one, without a written record?
    So easily. When I was a solicitor I had a lot of farming clients. The representative of the broker would go into their field with them, occasionally dig up a random sample and then shake hands on what the price per tonne was going to be for his crop, whatever it came in at, a few months later. Not saying it didn't keep me in business mind!
    I was always taught that oral contracts were binding in English law. Has that changed?

    There is of course a problem in proving what was said, but if that is not in dispute I believe the contract is binding.
    Two issues: oral contracts are binding except where the law says they are not - lots of transactions relating to land etc.

    Though oral contracts are made all the time (even wordless ones where you buy a newspaper with cash managing not to exchange a single word with the vendor - quite easy early in the morning at a busy place) in transactions of any magnitude or complexity courts are very slow to believe the evidence that a contract has been so made.

    In particular cultures - farming, the City of London, it is easy to envisage a genuine habit of large oral contracts.

    It is said the Titanic was insured on the overdue market on the night of the loss at a premium of 30% in an unwitnessed oral exchange between a Lloyds underwriter and broker. The underwriter paid the claim.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    A priest friend of mine once said to me that he was always amazed at how many Christians were less concerned about the homeless dying on the streets than they were about where someone puts their dick.

    Not surprising when historically even churches of many faiths are the same in that regard.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    They really are an evil bunch. Throwing shovelfuls of money to their pals and yet they cannot find a few million to feed hungry children, how do these people sleep at night. Luckily the Scottish Government has used some of their pocket money to ensure it is not the case in Scotland despite the Tories best efforts.
    Even more sick is that the Scottish Tory MP's voted against hungry English children getting a hot meal, it is just unbelievable.
    Likewise my sycophantic, Johnson loving MP here in the Vale of Glamorgan. A man who thought supporting one of his minions, who deliberately collapsed a rape trial was perfectly acceptable, yet feeding one decent meal a day to poor English children isn't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Midterm results are almost completely irrelevant to the subsequent Presidential election, they are mainly midterm protests.

    In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.

    In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.

    In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.

    The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.

    Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012
  • Why do you think I'm moving to Scotland?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,098
    The Tier 2 package is actually about London and Birmingham.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Scott_xP said:
    Yet Tory voters reject extending free school meals over the holidays by a 7% margin
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    They really are an evil bunch. Throwing shovelfuls of money to their pals and yet they cannot find a few million to feed hungry children, how do these people sleep at night. Luckily the Scottish Government has used some of their pocket money to ensure it is not the case in Scotland despite the Tories best efforts.
    Even more sick is that the Scottish Tory MP's voted against hungry English children getting a hot meal, it is just unbelievable.
    P.S. ...and these ******* are the very same people who took issue with the Midlothian question for the last twenty years!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    "beyond our political and media class, the arguments traded during this Manchester stand-off have made lockdown scepticism not only socially acceptable but, increasingly, the just cause.

    A wholesale change of strategy must surely be on the cards."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/21/manchester-should-mark-beginning-theend-senseless-lockdown-mania/

    I think this current phase may be the last true lockdown. When local politicians so strongly resist despite no power to resist the gov will only retain national support to do so for so long
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,463
    edited October 2020
    I tend not to comment on the USA election because most people on here are much more knowledgeable than me. In my big, simplistic picture I think Biden will win, maybe handsomely, but I confess some nervousness, and therefore haven't invested much money on it.

    It strikes me as remarkable that Trump is still heading for somewhere between 40-45% of the vote - despite his blatant unfitness to be President. What makes me nervous is that it wouldn't take that huge a shift to get him to, say, 47/48% where the EC begins to work in his favour. As days go by, that seems less likely, but could still happen - Biden really puts his foot in it, an unexpected event, very effective Dem voter suppression, blatant cheating, or whatever. Who knows? At least Covid won't help Trump out - the data in the USA now seems to be getting worse rather than better.

    So, I think Biden will win - but the margins still make me a little nervous. I would be in utter despair for the global future if Trump won again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited October 2020

    RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.

    It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
  • HYUFD said:

    Midterm results are almost completely irrelevant to the subsequent Presidential election, they are mainly midterm protests.

    In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.

    In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.

    In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.

    The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.

    Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012

    Mike's point wasn't about the results though, but rather the polls. He's saying the polls were accurate, by and large, at the mid-terms. That might suggest the problems the pollsters had in 2016 had been to some extent remedied by 2018.

    Mind you, I wouldn't place too much faith in them even now. Some pollsters are still distinctly flaky. :wink:
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Why do you think I'm moving to Scotland?
    Where are you moving to?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    IanB2 said:

    The Tier 2 package is actually about London and Birmingham.
    Yet the furthest north they got was north London.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    Supreme Court just machine gunning out the voter suppression rulings.

    https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1319072235454402561?s=19

    A very reasoned dissent from Sotomayor. No reasoning at all from Thomas, of course, as it’s not required, but I’d be interested to hear how one might justify his choosing to refer this particular application to to the court and then vote to grant it.

    More generally, I’d be interested to hear what are the constitutional principles which the conservative justices claim to espouse that justify their constant activist tinkering with the electoral process.

    https://twitter.com/jonmladd/status/1319096538736582657
    It sounds like the existing nine judges might be a little light in terms of their knowledge of constitutional law. Perhaps it would help if there were a couple more people on the court to help guide them to better decisions. 😉
    Only eight at the moment. :smile:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
    Relevant political responses, particularly if the lack is stated to be an outrage, but not determinative of whether not doing it now is a bad idea.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    I love the angst of the bewildered commentaries. Voters keep telling them but it never sinks in.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,603
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
    Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.

    This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    HYUFD said:

    Midterm results are almost completely irrelevant to the subsequent Presidential election, they are mainly midterm protests.

    In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.

    In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.

    In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.

    The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.

    Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012

    We were talking about the accuracy of pollsters in predicting the results, which is entirely relevant.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    HYUFD said:

    RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.

    It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
    And you still don’t understand probabilities.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
    As I said yesterday school feeding in the holidays is an emergency measure. We have to go back to being a society who doesn't blame the destitute for being destitute ("they all have iPhones" etc) which means a fix for the environment that tips people into such grinding poverty that they can't feed themselves.

    Until then, its just basic decency. We can afford big bungs to Tory donors, we can afford to feed hungry kids, but we're chosing not to because fuck you. Are the Tories sure that is the message they want to give people?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    HYUFD said:

    Midterm results are almost completely irrelevant to the subsequent Presidential election, they are mainly midterm protests.

    In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.

    In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.

    In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.

    The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.

    Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012

    Mike's point wasn't about the results though, but rather the polls. He's saying the polls were accurate, by and large, at the mid-terms. That might suggest the problems the pollsters had in 2016 had been to some extent remedied by 2018.

    Mind you, I wouldn't place too much faith in them even now. Some pollsters are still distinctly flaky. :wink:
    It wouldn't because Trump was not on the ballot in 2018, there is no shy GOP vote just as there was no shy Romney vote in 2012, only a shy Trump vote as 2016 showed
  • Why do you think I'm moving to Scotland?
    Where are you moving to?
    Aberdeenshire. Northern Aberdeenshire...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    felix said:

    I love the angst of the bewildered commentaries. Voters keep telling them but it never sinks in.
    I cannot say I would have expected the Tories to retain a lead this long, and my prediction of them regularly being behind by the end of 2020 may be under threat.

    But people do need to seek to understand it more than gnashing their teeth at it or concluding voters are stupid. OK, let's say that's the case, why are they stupid, how to enlighten them or appeal to the stupid?
  • Does anyone have a number as to how many of these 'hungry children' there are ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited October 2020

    HYUFD said:

    RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.

    It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
    And you still don’t understand probabilities.
    As I said last night, if I gave Trump a 0.5% probablity of winning but forecast Biden to win 400 to 138 overall I could still technically say I did not rule out a Trump win
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    This is the sort of thing that will cling to the Conservatives like a bad smell. It will be a reminder to wavers of why the "nasty party" shouldn't get their vote.
    Astounding result. Like asking "Do you agree that everything should be nice and nothing should be nasty?" More illuminating if the question said either "forever" or "for the duration of covid 19" (or gave the choice). If the former, has it ever been in a Labour manifesto and why has it never been enacted by a Labour government?
    Holiday provision for free school meals has been enacted by the Labour government here in Wales.

    This really shouldn't be a party political issue, but a moral conscience issue. Hungry children is not a good look for any political party. Scapegoating idle and feckless adults is fair game, but deliberately voting to malnourish children doesn't go down well with the mums.
    As my wife has just put it "there is an inability for too many people in England to put themselves in other people's shoes". I have no problem if England wants to descend into the right wing pit - that's free choice. I've had enough of it. "If you don't like it go and live somewhere else" say some Tories. OK, I will.
  • Over 13k new cases in Belgium today.

    So, assuming some other cases are not been picked up, about the total the UK is believed to have peaked at in March.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Midterm results are almost completely irrelevant to the subsequent Presidential election, they are mainly midterm protests.

    In 2010 for example the GOP won the House by 7%, Obama was then re elected in 2012 by 3%.

    In 1994 the GOP won the House by 7%, in 1996 Clinton was re elected by 8%.

    In 1982 the Democrats won the House by 12%, in 1984 Reagan was re elected by 18%.

    The only time recently there was any correlation was when the GOP won in 2002 the midterms and Bush was re elected in 2004 but that was distorted by 9/11.

    Trump was also not on the ballot in 2018 and while there was a shy Trump vote in 2016 in the rustbelt swing states and almost certainly will be again next month there was no shy GOP vote in 2014 or 2018 and no shy Romney vote in 2012

    Mike's point wasn't about the results though, but rather the polls. He's saying the polls were accurate, by and large, at the mid-terms. That might suggest the problems the pollsters had in 2016 had been to some extent remedied by 2018.

    Mind you, I wouldn't place too much faith in them even now. Some pollsters are still distinctly flaky. :wink:
    It wouldn't because Trump was not on the ballot in 2018, there is no shy GOP vote just as there was no shy Romney vote in 2012, only a shy Trump vote as 2016 showed
    Yes but, for example, Trump explicitly endorsed Roy Moore in Alabama and he got beat by the Democrat.

    Trump put himself out there and got beat. Trump's spirit was on the ballot if not actually Trump himself.

    Just one example from the last 4 years
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785
    IanB2 said:

    The Tier 2 package is actually about London and Birmingham.
    Quick tot up - there are somewhere over 6 million people in Northern England still under tier 2. OK, there are tier 3 discussions ongoing for a majority of them, but I'm not certain all these will come to pass.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Why do you think I'm moving to Scotland?
    Where are you moving to?
    Aberdeenshire. Northern Aberdeenshire...
    The North East! Not too many Tories up there for you?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,591
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    RCP is garbage, they leave out most of the polls. There's no point in using them for any kind of comparison, and their data shouldn't brought up in any conversation except "WTF happened to RCP, that site used to be pretty good back in the day"

    Yet RCP was closer to the final result than 538 in 2016, 538 had Hillary winning with over 300 EC votes.

    It seems most on here have learnt nothing from 2016, then the final Wisconsin average had Hillary up by 7% but Trump won the state by 0.7% for example
    And you still don’t understand probabilities.
    As I said last night, if I gave Trump a 0.5% probablity of winning but forecast Biden to win I could still technically say I did not rule out a Trump win
    And Gallowgate would rightly ridicule you again for not understanding probabilities.
This discussion has been closed.