Not useful unless you also break down by rural/urban, education and race.
Too many things mixed together there.
Surely that is true of any attempt to categorise voters? You can choose one category or you can choose two three or four combined.
Does this necessarily mean wealthier voters favour Trump? Aren't Republicans more likely to be married/co-habiting? My household income would be on the low side but then I am a single person.
Georgia: the lead is down to 90,000 votes with c. 280,000 remaining.
If Trump holds on in Georgia, it will likely be with a lead substantially smaller than the number of ballots that USPS failed to deliver.
They should definitely get counted.
Isn't the issue that the ballots weren't delivered to the voter, so we don't know how they would have voted, or have I misunderstood?
No, Ben, it is the other way round, ballots being delivered back to ballot-counting sites - i.e. completed ballot papers:
"Roughly 300,000 ballots that the Postal Service says it processed showed no scan confirming their delivery to ballot-counting sites, according to data filed recently in federal court in Washington, D.C., leaving voter-rights advocates concerned.
"Postal officials said that just because a ballot never received a final scan before going out for delivery, it did not mean, necessarily, that it wasn’t delivered. A machine scanning ballots for final processing can sometimes miss ballots that are stuck together or whose bar codes are smudged. And hand-sorted ballots typically do not receive a final scan before delivery." (NYT)
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
Yawn. Calling recounts just makes you look like a sore loser.
If Biden had lost Wisconsin but within the margin allowing for a recount under Wisconsin law, he'd be calling for one too.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results.
But demanding a recount he's entitled to due to the closeness of the vote? Fair enough (although he'll not overturn 20,000 on a recount).
If that's accurate, it does somewhat disrupt the favoured narrative of blue collar workers voting for Trump and the liberal elite for Biden. It also puts into question whether identity politics/BLM etc. was such a significant player. It looks a bit traditional - people voting for who they think will make them better off financially.
PS I haven't posted today till now because I've been in a huge sulk about being completely wrong in predicting a Biden landslide. Kudos to those super-forecasters who did much better than me. Still, if Biden wins I'll live with it.
Rural/urban with the battle for the burbs is the key US Trumpian divide followed by race. Class and income are low down the list.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
The irregularities are that people voted for the other guy
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
Yawn. Calling recounts just makes you look like a sore loser.
If Biden had lost Wisconsin but within the margin allowing for a recount under Wisconsin law, he'd be calling for one too.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results.
But demanding a recount he's entitled to due to the closeness of the vote? Fair enough (although he'll not overturn 20,000 on a recount).
Sure. Yet it still makes you look like a sore loser (I would be a sore loser too!).
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
Yawn. Calling recounts just makes you look like a sore loser.
If Biden had lost Wisconsin but within the margin allowing for a recount under Wisconsin law, he'd be calling for one too.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results.
But demanding a recount he's entitled to due to the closeness of the vote? Fair enough (although he'll not overturn 20,000 on a recount).
The irony being, of course, that the Wisconsin rules on recounts were massively tightened - by Republicans, after Jill Stein forced one last time around that they did not relish.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Not been following things too much, but noting that betfair makes Reps about 3 in Pennsylvania and 3 ish in Arizona
If Trump wins those 2 plus Georgia and NC would he win?
With Biden winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada etc
No. He needs one of AZ or NV.
No, he doesn't.
He does if Biden wins MI and WI?
Biden needs AZ+NV+MI+WI
He's leading in all of them but needs to clinch them all or else win GA or PA.
My view is that MI and WI are won.
But I think there is some doubt over AZ and NV.
That is a fair assessment.
I would be interested in @Alistair's calcs. Seems like there are some Trump counties out there and counties like Allegherny are not strong enough for Biden
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
Yawn. Calling recounts just makes you look like a sore loser.
If Biden had lost Wisconsin but within the margin allowing for a recount under Wisconsin law, he'd be calling for one too.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results.
But demanding a recount he's entitled to due to the closeness of the vote? Fair enough (although he'll not overturn 20,000 on a recount).
trump contesting Wisconsin. Claiming irregularities in several counties
He's just talking about the "vote dump" stuff he's seen on twitter. He'll believe anything he sees on there. For somebody who goes on and on about "fake news" he's incredibly bad at actually spotting it when he sees it.
The irregularities are that people voted for the other guy
Trump is a very odd character. I don't think he's at this moment fulminating at the prospect of defeat, but just enjoying stirring up anything he can think of on twitter. He enjoys being part of the media cycle more than he actually cares.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
Not been following things too much, but noting that betfair makes Reps about 3 in Pennsylvania and 3 ish in Arizona
If Trump wins those 2 plus Georgia and NC would he win?
With Biden winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada etc
No. He needs one of AZ or NV.
No, he doesn't.
He does if Biden wins MI and WI?
Biden needs AZ+NV+MI+WI
He's leading in all of them but needs to clinch them all or else win GA or PA.
My view is that MI and WI are won.
But I think there is some doubt over AZ and NV.
That is a fair assessment.
I would be interested in @Alistair's calcs. Seems like there are some Trump counties out there and counties like Allegherny are not strong enough for Biden
That's because there is over a million postal to count mostly focused in places like Allegherny
So according to HYUFD everyone between the 7th and 93rd percentile is a middle income household? Hilarious. Households that may have many multiples of income difference between them that should for statistical analysis be put in the same category. Now that is silly.
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
The best evidence available and correct me if I am wrong is that well-off areas still tend to vote Conservative and poorer areas Labour, except in around 120 metropolitan seats where race is a stronger predictor.
Leaving aside the masks, which are unpleasant but bearable, can anyone even remotely explain or justify the logic of ordering large numbers of staff not to come in but schools to remain open at 24 hours’ warning?
I've cashed out green of all the markets, for a second time, purely because I don't want to spend the next week following it when I have better things to do and builders to organise.
Misleading, Biden won the richest voters earning over $200k a year 47% to 43% for Trump and the poorest voters earning under $50k, Trump did best amongst middle income voters earning from $50k to $200k
$200k a year is middle income? You move in pretty exclusive circles!
Under $200k a year household income is middle income in the USA, 7% of households as the data shows of US voters have household income over $200k, a husband and a wife each earning £70,000 a year in the UK would have been on over $200 000 a year household income in US terms only a few years ago when you got $1.5 to the £1
A definition of middle income that goes up to the 93rd percentile is a pretty wide one. For symmetry it should start at the 7th percentile though, which I am guessing is some way below $50k/year. You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
7% of British parents send their children to private school and that is a common cutoff for the upper middle class, I did not say middle class, 2 couples on median income voted for Trump when you look at their household income.
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
You didn't say middle class though, you said middle income. I'm just pointing out that $200k is nowhere close to middle income. It puts you close to the top of the US income distribution. Middle class is a broad category that is only loosely connected to income (I have been middle class all my life but my household income is much much higher than my parents' was when I was growing up). And in any case in America "Middle class" is a euphemistic term for working class but not poor, it has a different meaning to here.
FPT - those voting against Lockdown II seem like the usual suspects to me. Theresa May abstained though who isn't. He obviously wants to avoid 55 letters as he's been very generous to those voting against him.
It may be that Boris's attitude on Brexit/coronavirus are in creative symbiosis.
How? Has he expelled all the rebels from the party?
The harder he is on coronavirus the harder he'll be on Brexit, as he doesn't want this bloc sending in letters because of both and then the moderates tipping it over the edge.
Leaving aside the masks, which are unpleasant but bearable, can anyone even remotely explain or justify the logic of ordering large numbers of staff not to come in but schools to remain open at 24 hours’ warning?
It's also very illogical. The purpose of the lockdown is to reduce the spread of the infection. It is not actually to protect the clinically vulnerable. It doesn't actually make sense that these staff were required to be at school on Wednesday, but not supposed to go to school on Thursday.
FPT - those voting against Lockdown II seem like the usual suspects to me. Theresa May abstained though who isn't. He obviously wants to avoid 55 letters as he's been very generous to those voting against him.
It may be that Boris's attitude on Brexit/coronavirus are in creative symbiosis.
How? Has he expelled all the rebels from the party?
The harder he is on coronavirus the harder he'll be on Brexit, as he doesn't want this bloc sending in letters because of both and then the moderates tipping it over the edge.
Can they still send letters if they've had the whip removed? Or rather, do the letters still count?
Mask a pony. You really needed that one explained to you?
I did, in my defence I've only had 4 hours worth of sleep in the last 24 hours.
More like 2 hours for me. But I had a very nice Cornish walk today that has recharged my batteries. Although Cornwall, what is it with all the poppies? They belong on your lapel, not all over your bloody house!
If Biden wins, how quickly does Kamala Harris get replaced in the Senate?
When the new Senate is seated - so she'll be a Senator until (I think) 2nd January and her successor will be sworn in with those elected yesterday on 3rd.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
I think 70/30 is too low a split for the mail vote. It is majority in heavy Dem areas and in those areas it is more like 80/20. And in Trump areas it is still 68/32
It does seem interesting that whilst wealthier Americans seemed to favour Trump the wealthiest of all preferred Biden.
In those sampled by that poll. The upper reaches of the health insurance, pharmaceutics, fossil fuel and defence industries are in bed with Trump, for instance, and those take in some of the very wealthiest individuals in the country.
Not been following things too much, but noting that betfair makes Reps about 3 in Pennsylvania and 3 ish in Arizona
If Trump wins those 2 plus Georgia and NC would he win?
With Biden winning Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada etc
No. He needs one of AZ or NV.
No, he doesn't.
He does if Biden wins MI and WI?
Biden needs AZ+NV+MI+WI
He's leading in all of them but needs to clinch them all or else win GA or PA.
My view is that MI and WI are won.
But I think there is some doubt over AZ and NV.
That is a fair assessment.
I would be interested in @Alistair's calcs. Seems like there are some Trump counties out there and counties like Allegherny are not strong enough for Biden
That's because there is over a million postal to count mostly focused in places like Allegherny
I think CNN said 73% in for Allegherny. Seems like 170K votes there to be counted.
There are still a number of heavily Republican counties with decent vote counts with large outstanding votes
Leaving aside the masks, which are unpleasant but bearable, can anyone even remotely explain or justify the logic of ordering large numbers of staff not to come in but schools to remain open at 24 hours’ warning?
It's also very illogical. The purpose of the lockdown is to reduce the spread of the infection. It is not actually to protect the clinically vulnerable. It doesn't actually make sense that these staff were required to be at school on Wednesday, but not supposed to go to school on Thursday.
The purpose of "lockdown"* is to reduce infection - to reduce pressure on the hospitals. Reducing the infection rate among the clinically vulnerable would cause a bigger decrease in pressure on the hospitals....
*Its not a lockdown in comparison to others around the world.
So here's my current take on states: WI and MI , confident Biden has them though Trumps already after his recount in WI PA I think it will be close but still think that lead will be too big a hill, a narrow win for Trump GA See PA NC Close but Trump again NV Trump campaign bullish on this but I think the Clark postals left will just do it, Biden narrowly AZ I honestly am not sure, but for no other reason than Maricopa county numbers, I think Biden wins it Final Tally Biden 270/ Trump 268
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
They knew *she* was crap.
They were scared of the Clinton machine that was as formidable as Brown’s in the UK
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
A couple of commentators have categorically said the election is over and Biden has won. How true is this...?
The punters haven't. I;m getting nervous.
Feel very conflicted. The usual suspects - Shipman and Dan Hodges - pretty certain it's over but continue to hear all sorts of odds things. Arizona etc
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
Obama put his thumb quite heavily on the scale, too. One of his worse decisions.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
She won the popular vote.
So did Clement Attlee in 1951.
[scoffing] Yebbut that was a unique occurrence in the UK since the 1918 election. The popular vote loser has "won" the US presidency on FIVE occasions!
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
The *way* she got the nomination was of a piece with the rest of it. And getting the nomination in a way that doesn't bring the party together is a stupid move.
Well, Bernie Sanders gave her quite a fright and he’s not even a Democrat.
The incumbent Veep? He would have won the primaries.
The problem was, he thought he couldn’t against Clinton. What’s intriguing in retrospect is just how formidable everyone, even those who knew her well, thought she was.
In a lot of ways, she was formidable. Very intelligent, brilliantly connected, great networker, hoovered up endorsements, occupied the moderate ground in a way that made it very difficult for a competitor other than from the left wing (Sanders). But it didn't, ultimately, make the public warm to her, and either her campaign team let her down badly or she rejected their good advice.
She is a poor elective politician - does well in the non-elective posts that exist high in the American government (SoS etc).
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
Yes - brilliant political operator, poor political campaigner.
No - a poor elective political operator and poor political campaigner. There is more to elective politics than just the campaign. Clinton essentially had a problem with dealing with large chunks of the Democratic party coalition on another basis than ShutUpAndVoteForMe.
She was self-evidently a good political operator in that she secured the Democrat nomination and scared off the moderate opposition in 2016.
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
She won the popular vote.
So did Clement Attlee in 1951.
[scoffing] Yebbut that was a unique occurrence in the UK since the 1918 election. The popular vote loser has "won" the US presidency on FIVE occasions!
They also won the Canadian general election last year
Comments
Does this necessarily mean wealthier voters favour Trump? Aren't Republicans more likely to be married/co-habiting? My household income would be on the low side but then I am a single person.
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1324049437413515264?s=20
"Roughly 300,000 ballots that the Postal Service says it processed showed no scan confirming their delivery to ballot-counting sites, according to data filed recently in federal court in Washington, D.C., leaving voter-rights advocates concerned.
"Postal officials said that just because a ballot never received a final scan before going out for delivery, it did not mean, necessarily, that it wasn’t delivered. A machine scanning ballots for final processing can sometimes miss ballots that are stuck together or whose bar codes are smudged. And hand-sorted ballots typically do not receive a final scan before delivery." (NYT)
He's leading in all of them but needs to clinch them all or else win GA or PA.
My view is that MI and WI are won.
But I think there is some doubt over AZ and NV.
I don't dispute your general point about Trump, and think the "irregularities" stuff is deliberate misinformation by him to throw shade and delegitimise results.
But demanding a recount he's entitled to due to the closeness of the vote? Fair enough (although he'll not overturn 20,000 on a recount).
New call, Biden by 130k
Wait is that right?
No it's not – Biden needs WI, MI, AZ and NV – all four otherwise he has to pick up PA or GA.
It's not done yet.
Q/ What's the best cheese to hide a horse with?
A/ Mascarpone
You are falling into the Daily Telegraph habit of labelling people as middle income who are actually in the richest 10% of the population. It is a common elitist mistake.
When she became senator in New York, a number of people in the Democratic party were unimpressed with her ability to build support and maintain it within the party, rather than just steamrollering her people into all the jobs...
I would be interested in @Alistair's calcs. Seems like there are some Trump counties out there and counties like Allegherny are not strong enough for Biden
Still suspect Biden could take Georgia. It's looking very tight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zzb-7EH-MQ
In the US the upper middle class vote Democrat on average as do the poor, just as in the UK the upper middle class are now disproportionally likely to vote LD or even for Starmer and the poorest voters tend to vote Labour, middle income voters in the UK vote Tory as middle income voters in the USA vote GOP
He was lookin' for a poll to steal
He was in a bind
'Cause he was way behind
Those postal delays were real.
Covid-19: All pupils and staff must wear masks in secondary school corridors
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54816419
Leaving aside the masks, which are unpleasant but bearable, can anyone even remotely explain or justify the logic of ordering large numbers of staff not to come in but schools to remain open at 24 hours’ warning?
But I don't believe it.
GA should be finalised.
MI and PA - I don’t think we get full and final results but we should have a fairly good idea of who has won unless PA is squeaky squeaky tight.
AZ who knows?
NV have given themselves a day off.
Middle class is a broad category that is only loosely connected to income (I have been middle class all my life but my household income is much much higher than my parents' was when I was growing up). And in any case in America "Middle class" is a euphemistic term for working class but not poor, it has a different meaning to here.
It's a big gap to fill.
Current vote totals takend from https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/2020/general/pennsylvania
Mail in Ballots remaining taken from https://www.votespa.com/About-Elections/Pages/Counting-Dashboard.aspx
Assumption about mail ballot split taken from looking at how mail ballots split in heavy Trump and not heavy Trump counties.
There are still a number of heavily Republican counties with decent vote counts with large outstanding votes
*Its not a lockdown in comparison to others around the world.
WI and MI , confident Biden has them though Trumps already after his recount in WI
PA I think it will be close but still think that lead will be too big a hill, a narrow win for Trump
GA See PA
NC Close but Trump again
NV Trump campaign bullish on this but I think the Clark postals left will just do it, Biden narrowly
AZ I honestly am not sure, but for no other reason than Maricopa county numbers, I think Biden wins it
Final Tally Biden 270/ Trump 268
They were scared of the Clinton machine that was as formidable as Brown’s in the UK
I'm quite sure you're right that she p1ssed some Democrats off along the way. But you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs. Good "operators" don't make everyone happy; they achieve what they want to achieve. And she got the nomination from the Democratic Party... whereupon she ran a sh1t campaign and failed to connect sufficiently with Joe Public.
Assuming Biden wins one perverse positive might be Trump's performance with non-white voters. Less polarisation along racial lines would be welcome.
Feeling panicky.
Biden 1.4
Trump 3.45
Squeaky bum time
Biden has just gone from 1.4 to 1.35 in last 60 seconds!
One of his worse decisions.