This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Months ago, I thought it was unclear who out of Sanders and Biden would be more successful against Trump. The argument for Biden being well-understood here, the arguments for Sanders being entusiasm plus the centre has been redefined, and on the elite-vs-people scale he is actually more centrist.
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
Judging by some of the quite surprising state polls we saw before Sanders exited the race, and the extraordinary ones we saw in places like Utah, which HYUFD drew attention to it, personally I think Sanders could have exceeded Biden's turnout in some areas, and lost out in other suburban areas across the country, leading to a similarly tied rice. However, we'll never know, obviously.
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
If you owe the debt to your own central bank why does it matter whether you cancel it or not?
Why would they want to cancel it, and lose the “income” from the “interest”?
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
I think something very radical, but credible, needs agreeing on debt or we'll all be pwned by China in less than 20 years.
It's happened before a little bit with third world debt, so not impossible.
The Dems did a really good job of getting their voters to postal vote well in advance, it must be said.
I guess it bodes well for the GA Senate run-off, it's probably easier to get people who have already voted by mail to do it again, rather than having to persuade people who hauled themselves down to the polling station to do that again or vote by mail for the first time.
DDHQ says that California count is running at 72%-86%
Biden's popular vote lead is surely going to grow significantly when that's counted.
Is California's delay primarily mail in votes or other votes? They seem to always be insanely slow every year.
Biden at better than evens to get more than 52% of the votes is value IMO.
People are just underestimating how much California + late votes will swing it his way. Plenty of other populous blue states are still counting too I think (NY, NJ, MA, MD, IL). The really red ones still going are only MS, LA, KY, KS...
I know you were very right in 2016 on this area. But I don't think you are this time.
The problem for the GOP is that they either have to excise the ghost of Trumpism by taking on the cult, or they have to get all aboard that particular train and subscribe to the loony, reality-denying and ultra-authoritarian sympathies of those groups. It will be very hard to walk that line. In the last 4 years they’ve been able to get them on board because they have a madman at their head who inspires near reverent devotion from them. Without him, what do they do? Who leads?
This is why Trump 2024 has a not-insignificant chance of happening. Personally I don’t think he’ll do it, he’ll just continue to stir the grievances like a king over the water, but it’s possible.
EDIT: I should also point out that (and sorry to be blunt) that Trump has a not insubstantial chance of either being in jail, too ill or dead by 2024. He’s an overweight man in his 70s whose main diet is McDonald’s and milkshakes. Say what you want about Joe Biden and his mental slowdown but physically he’s in much better shape.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I think if I were Joe Biden, the first thing I would do is gather the leaders of the G7 and work out a new accord which allows countries to cancel all debt related to the virus. So any additional borrowing for job protection etc...
Right now western nations are saddled with an additional 15-20% of GDP in debt, and it's actually pretty uniform. Agreeing a global initiative for debt cancellation makes a lot of sense given that the whole world has been caught in it and the majority of it is owed to central banks.
I think something very radical, but credible, needs agreeing on debt or we'll all be pwned by China in less than 20 years.
It's happened before a little bit with third world debt, so not impossible.
Yes, and I think that's the justification. Our grandchildren shouldn't be paying for China's fuckup. Biden seems like someone who might push for something radical. If a Labour staffer is reading, it's something Starmer should start making noises about too. Labour are going to be the party clearing the the mess, better to just just reset the clock.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I the establishment GOP can agree to put forward a single candidate to the priamaries, say Marco Rubio, then I think he would get the nom. As soon as there is any splitting amongst the non-Trumpian vote it's all over for them.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I think it's wrong to assume the lesson to be learnt from this is that the Republicans need a more centrist candidate. We're forgetting they have made considerable House gains and that Biden's EC lead may look substantial but, like Trump's in 2016, it is resting on very thin margins. There is an argument to say that, if CV hadn't been around, Trump would have walked it. CV will probably not be around in 2024.
Hmm, I’m unsure he would have walked it. I think the result would have been similar but he might have squeaked an ECV margin. The better counterfactual is that Trump actually takes Covid seriously and gains back some suburban support.
COVID cases spiked in Wisconsin over the last month - that may well have sunk Trump there.
I think that Trump thought the virus would mostly be an urban (for which read Democrat) issue, and wouldn’t spread as far as it has to rural areas.
A pandemic virus is also not suited to the much more libertarian and anti-government instincts of most of his supporters.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
It's entirely possible to both be alert to racial injustice (i.e. woke), and hold taboo (e.g. anti-immigration) opinions that might get you in trouble at work. I doubt it's even rare.
Mashing together distinct concepts, just because they are associated with one part of the political spectrum and hence correlated, is a barrier to understanding.
The problem for the GOP is that they either have to excise the ghost of Trumpism by taking on the cult, or they have to get all aboard that particular train and subscribe to the loony, reality-denying and ultra-authoritarian sympathies of those groups. It will be very hard to walk that line. In the last 4 years they’ve been able to get them on board because they have a madman at their head who inspires near reverent devotion from them. Without him, what do they do? Who leads?
This is why Trump 2024 has a not-insignificant chance of happening. Personally I don’t think he’ll do it, he’ll just continue to stir the grievances like a king over the water, but it’s possible.
EDIT: I should also point out that (and sorry to be blunt) that Trump has a not insubstantial chance of either being in jail, too ill or dead by 2024. He’s an overweight man in his 70s whose main diet is McDonald’s and milkshakes. Say what you want about Joe Biden and his mental slowdown but physically he’s in much better shape.
It is all about how they tackle QAnon. They have QAnon congresspeople and QAnon state-level reps now.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
Betfair still seems to be giving Trump an implied probability not much under 10%. I wonder what that's based on.
Not everyone runs the rollong numbers like the kind of political nerd on this site. You wake up and the raw figures say he's ahead in GA and PA and you thnk "wow, that's a bargain". You need to look at the rolling averages and votes remaining to see that the odds are overwhelmingly with Biden in both states at the moment.
Bet with the head not the heart is what I always say. Don't let your emotions or personal preference get I the way.
This may seem sad to seasoned spread betters on here but when I bought Biden at 2.30 am at 262 ECVs I was shaking with fear. It was totally head over gut. My gut screamed not to do it because the markets were sliding away. But my head saw the suburban results and the c 5% swing to Biden from Clinton and I knew mentally that this had to be a great sign for him. But I've never ever in my life had such sheer terror with a bet. Looks good now but I really 'felt' I might come a cropper.
And in the interest of balance, I lost several fixed odds bets as plenty on here will know So I'm only reiterating your point: always bet with your head. Study the detail. And if you're spread betting, don't get drunk and DO stay up all through. You need to watch and react fast. Obvious points to many of you, I know.
Buried inside Biden's Florida 'disaster' was the sign of why he would win the Presidency.
You're one of the few of us who held your nerve, and you will be handsomely rewarded for it as a consequence.
Great frame.
Indeed @Mysticrose congratulations and I hope you spend your winnings on something nice
MrEd, thanks for staying around when Trump was losing, unlike a lot who came on to gloat when it looked like Biden was done and disappeared when things changed.
We need the argument from both sides and you posted lots of argued analysis from the opposite perspective and in the end you were pretty well alone, which makes it a lot harder.
I was about to say I enjoyed your posts, but to be honest I often didn't because you often put a good argument that worried me.
Thank you.
Indeed, MrEd's point about Trump picking up hispanic votes seem to have turned out to be right.
I know posting what is, mmmm, a "non-consensual" view is not always easy. I also know there is a hell of a lot I don't know and that there are plenty of people on here who know far more about far many things than I did which is why I find I spend so much time on here For example, the @Alistair on PA made me hesitate about some bets I was considering.
So thank you everyone
Oh do stop it. Your stuff is absolutely fine but it is not "difficult" or "courageous" to write contra consensus posts on an internet forum. In fact watch me do it now -
You called this wrong. You were correct and insightful on a vital point, that the Trump vote was underestimated, and particularly his appeal to Latinos and to a lesser extent Blacks. I've already hat-tipped that and again - nice one. But you were wrong on the big picture. He has not won the election. He has lost it convincingly in both the Popular Vote and the Electoral College.
You are imo an intelligent and articulate Trump fanboy who writes reams of artful puffery and occasionally, like the blind squirrel, stumbles on a nut. You also seem reluctant to call out this crap about fraud costing him the election and this is disappointing.
To be fair he did say it was dangerous and wrong last night, although I agree most of the posts dont make that clear. I think its very useful to hear how the insiders think and I think Mr Ed has given that Trumpian view here better than anyone.
It is biased and often incorrect, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, sometimes outright misleading, but the same could be said for most partisans.
I see @kinabalu is behaving with his usual grace. He's probably getting himself wired up before he goes out hunting for TERFs and burning JK Rowling's books.
Snide and wrong and disappointing.
Another one who is quite happy to dish it out and then cries about it when someone pushes back.
Anyway, we had a bet and I lost so I need to pay up. I remember it was Mermaids but would you just confirm?
"Dishing it out" and now "crying about it"? - hardly a fair description of what I posted! You are starting to sound like your vanquished hero. I wonder why.
Anyway, c'mon, it's just a politics forum. It's been a great ride, this WH2020, sounds like we both made good money on it, and everybody posts what they want to post.
On our bet, you are actually in the clear.
We had 2 bets of £25 each. The original bet I win since Trump has lost. But the 2nd bet was on the margin of his defeat. I said he would not get to 200 in the EC and he's looking like 232. So I lost that one.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
If you've mistreated the dog you can't really complain when it tries to run off.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
I'm a cat guy, but dogs are good too.
Cats are even more likely to clear off to a better home!
I said 5k in my betting post yesterday morning having crunched the numbers
When I went to bed I thought 4k
Not sure what is left but cashed out 90% just in case Military that i have no clue how it breaks makes it even tighter than 4k
If you cant cash out I wouldnt worry too much but i am being ultra conservative
Nothing wrong with being careful, but you know the military did give Hilary small advantage, and before they do that, there’s lot of Dem votes still to declare, so 5K+ may still be value bet.
To come from 25 points behind to 5 points ahead is extraordinary.
Keep believing that. In reality the government received a massive incumbency/lockdown boost early in the year. Happened all over the world as the pandemic hit, and we all pulled together. Fatigue has now hit, its unwound and we are 10 years into Conservative government (either coalition, confidence and supply or majority). Its also meaningless. Give it a year, working vaccines, economic recovery following a fig leaf trade deal with the EU and most folk will go back to giving as much attention to politics as always (pretty much none).
The whole GOP after Trump thing is super interesting. I thought Rebbecca Long Bailey was nailed on for leader instead of Keir.
I think now is definitely the time for them to put forwards a sane centre right candidate. Biden is going to be a weak POTUS, a slim house majority beholden to progressives and no majority in the senate. A sane Republican could really clean up.
Doesn't Biden want to join the TPP? The UK might not even need any agreement with the US.
No I believe even Biden has said now he won't join the TPP which is a real shame.
The strategic case is the same as it was before - if anything bigger, since China is a bigger threat than it was - and the TPP as such is no longer a thing since everybody else is in the CPTPP, so I think the obvious move is to make a few tweaks and call it something else? Seems like a good opportunity for the British to get in, lets Biden keep the substance while removing the Pacific reference.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I the establishment GOP can agree to put forward a single candidate to the priamaries, say Marco Rubio, then I think he would get the nom. As soon as there is any splitting amongst the non-Trumpian vote it's all over for them.
I think it will be Haley, especially if it is Harris running for the Dems.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I the establishment GOP can agree to put forward a single candidate to the priamaries, say Marco Rubio, then I think he would get the nom. As soon as there is any splitting amongst the non-Trumpian vote it's all over for them.
It isn't as after the first few primaries the Trumpian base would all shift to whichever of Pence or Trump Jnr was ahead and they would likely then beat Rubio, Haley is also a more centrist candidate than Rubio anyway
Brexit Party show the biggest increase with women, up 50%, when will people start taking these polls seriously!?!
Labour iwthin 10 of the Tories in the "south outside London", with three times the LIbDem rating. Interesting problem for tactical anti-Tory voters in May to decide whether to vote on the results last time or the current polls.
Sorry old bean, but that is pure speculation on your part. May I suggest that you speak less in absolutes and more in suggestions? Eg. "It is possible that..." or "IMHO the government has lost support because..."
My belief/speculation is that as with many things, the public, who are less interested in politics than those on here, have eventually caught up with the fact that Boris Johnson is not a leader, that he is an incompetent buffoon, and they have stopped giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is also my opinion that they are now giving a serious look at Labour who they are giving the benefit of the doubt to as they have a smart professional looking leader. Simples! Tories should ditch The Clown asap.
The figures are clear 7% of 2019 Tory voters have now switched to Farage and the Brexit party, now to become the anti lockdown Reform UK party ie almost as many as the 8% who have switched to Labour. 44% of 2019 LDs are voting Labour so more of the increased Labour vote is coming from 2019 LDs than Tories and the swing away from the Tories this week is mainly to Farage after the lockdown, so getting out of the lockdown in December as planned is vital, it is a policy issue not a Boris issue per se https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/w35fkmlez4/TheTimes_VI_Tracker_201105_W1.pdf
A good attempt, but methinks your analysis is a little shaky, and, dare I say it, somewhat simplistic. If this is how Tories justify matters they are most likely heading for a big shock in a few years. This maybe just the beginning of a trend. If The Clown throws away the air of competence that Tories have relied on for their bedrock support, what are they for? As I say, they need to ditch him and the sooner they figure out how to and when will depend on their chances of seeing off Starmer next time.
There are a bunch of Provisional ballots in parts of PA that we’re mail-ins that got handed in on the day. Different counties seemed to have different rules. Plus there are 30k mail ins in Pittsburgh that need to be tallied due to the contractor fucking up and sending those people the wrong ballot. Those will all likely be D. I think this might look like MI where the lead gets bigger as the remains of the count go through.
Oh god, the data is available but spread across 51 PDF files
You're going in, aren't you?
I DID IT
The Trump Clinton Alaska Mail Vote Split
Clinton: 22985 Trump': 32529
There was quite a strong 3rd party figure that I haven't extracted.
Yeah, so assuming all the GOPers who voted by mail voted by mail this time AND all the extra Mail ballot above the the 2016 figure are 100% DEM that does not give Biden enough votes.
Doesn't Biden want to join the TPP? The UK might not even need any agreement with the US.
No I believe even Biden has said now he won't join the TPP which is a real shame.
The strategic case is the same as it was before - if anything bigger, since China is a bigger threat than it was - and the TPP as such is no longer a thing since everybody else is in the CPTPP, so I think the obvious move is to make a few tweaks and call it something else? Seems like a good opportunity for the British to get in, lets Biden keep the substance while removing the Pacific reference.
Yes, I think that's the ultimate aim of the UK government to have good trade terms with the US, get into the CPTPP and then wait for the YS to join and use the bargaining power of those nations to say no to chlorinated chicken.
Brexit Party show the biggest increase with women, up 50%, when will people start taking these polls seriously!?!
Labour iwthin 10 of the Tories in the "south outside London", with three times the LIbDem rating. Interesting problem for tactical anti-Tory voters in May to decide whether to vote on the results last time or the current polls.
The whole GOP after Trump thing is super interesting. I thought Rebbecca Long Bailey was nailed on for leader instead of Keir.
Had Biden got a landslide on the scale Boris did against Corbyn last year then it is possible Haley or Rubio may have had a chance in 2024 but Trump did well enough and the GOP held the Senate so that the GOP base did not see their agenda as completely repudiated, had Corbyn only narrowly lost last year then it may well have been Long Bailey elected to replace him not Starmer
Brexit Party show the biggest increase with women, up 50%, when will people start taking these polls seriously!?!
Labour iwthin 10 of the Tories in the "south outside London", with three times the LIbDem rating. Interesting problem for tactical anti-Tory voters in May to decide whether to vote on the results last time or the current polls.
LDs have been completely anonymous in 2020. They have a lot of work to do to become relevant.
We are asking why Trump has got so many votes but why aren't we asking why Biden also got so many votes?
I guess the focus is on Trump because for four years people have been saying he won in 2016 despite getting fewer votes than Romney (that's right, isn't it?) did in 2012. It shows that there was enthusiasm for him after four years in power. Clearly there was also plenty of enthusiasm for getting rid of him, but Trump's performance will have an impact on US politics over the next four years.
We are asking why Trump has got so many votes but why aren't we asking why Biden also got so many votes?
I guess the focus is on Trump because for four years people have been saying he won in 2016 despite getting fewer votes than Romney (that's right, isn't it?) did in 2012. It shows that there was enthusiasm for him after four years in power. Clearly there was also plenty of enthusiasm for getting rid of him, but Trump's performance will have an impact on US politics over the next four years.
More absolute votes, lower vote share than Romney.
The problem for the GOP is that they either have to excise the ghost of Trumpism by taking on the cult, or they have to get all aboard that particular train and subscribe to the loony, reality-denying and ultra-authoritarian sympathies of those groups. It will be very hard to walk that line. In the last 4 years they’ve been able to get them on board because they have a madman at their head who inspires near reverent devotion from them. Without him, what do they do? Who leads?
This is why Trump 2024 has a not-insignificant chance of happening. Personally I don’t think he’ll do it, he’ll just continue to stir the grievances like a king over the water, but it’s possible.
EDIT: I should also point out that (and sorry to be blunt) that Trump has a not insubstantial chance of either being in jail, too ill or dead by 2024. He’s an overweight man in his 70s whose main diet is McDonald’s and milkshakes. Say what you want about Joe Biden and his mental slowdown but physically he’s in much better shape.
It is all about how they tackle QAnon. They have QAnon congresspeople and QAnon state-level reps now.
IF they let QAnon fester they are super fucked.
You are assuming a level of control they do not have. There is not much "let" involved here. QAnon spreads because its an addictive virus.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I'm not confident at all which wing of the party the nominee will be from, I just think that Pence won't want to fight for it (he didn't run in the 2016 primaries, I don't think he wants the internal fight) and I doubt the Trump family will actually run. I reckon they will cash in on media appearances for years but not actually run again, running is hard work with no reward at this point since they have a market for them to sell things to and give them media value for years.
Oh god, the data is available but spread across 51 PDF files
You're going in, aren't you?
I DID IT
The Trump Clinton Alaska Mail Vote Split
Clinton: 22985 Trump': 32529
There was quite a strong 3rd party figure that I haven't extracted.
Yeah, so assuming all the GOPers who voted by mail voted by mail this time AND all the extra Mail ballot above the the 2016 figure are 100% DEM that does not give Biden enough votes.
It seems to me that the climate and remoteness of Alaska makes it more conducive to postal voting even for GOP supporters. The final polls were T+5, T+6, T+9
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Months ago, I thought it was unclear who out of Sanders and Biden would be more successful against Trump. The argument for Biden being well-understood here, the arguments for Sanders being entusiasm plus the centre has been redefined, and on the elite-vs-people scale he is actually more centrist.
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
Judging by some of the quite surprising state polls we saw before Sanders exited the race, and the extraordinary ones we saw in places like Utah, which HYUFD drew attention to it, personally I think Sanders could have exceeded Biden's turnout in some areas, and lost out in other suburban areas across the country, leading to a similarly tied rice. However, we'll never know, obviously.
Certainly possible Sanders would have done worse in Florida (which Biden lost anyway, so doesn't matter) but better in places like Michigan (which Biden won anyway so also doesn't matter). Might have been a clearer victory in EC terms but closer in terms of popular vote, but who knows?
F##k me, if a random sod like me off the interwebs can spot there was a problem with those 2 slides as soon as i saw them, i worry about the quality of our scientific advisors if they can't spot it.
Either our scientific advisors need replacing because they don't understand the basics of mathematical modelling or they need replacing because they have misled the public.
Looks like the floor to Biden now is 306 ECVs which means he does at least as well as Trump 2016 ECV-wise.
Be fun to see him gain either Alaska or North Carolina to make is complete.
Yes it's really starting to look like a comprehensive, clear victory.
306, with the biggest popular vote mandate of any US president in history.
Not too shabby.
It's certainly not the biggest popular vote mandate - his lead is only about 4-5 percentage points I understand. Obama in 2008 was 7.3%, Reagan in 1984 was 18.2% and Nixon in 1972 was 23%. Much more emphatic mandates, albeit from smaller electorates.
Of course, George Washington, who ran unopposed, had, by definition, the biggest popular vote mandate ever - a full 100%.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
If you've mistreated the dog you can't really complain when it tries to run off.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
I'm a cat guy, but dogs are good too.
Cats are even more likely to clear off to a better home!
Or keep several homes going.
"The best of Both Worlds' as a certain political campaign claimed.
I suppose Trump could always represent himself in court.
I called this last night.
270 to win.
And then it's over. The lifeforce will bleed from him in a blink of an eye.
I've been trying to say much the same thing to HYUFD, but he wouldn't have it. He seemed to think (or rather to know!) that Trump would return as president in 2024.
If Trump does not run again in 2024 then Pence will likely be the GOP nominee in 2024 instead, one of the GOP ticket this year will therefore again be GOP candidate in 4 years time
Republicans may do better with a more centrist candidate to win back the suburbs. Are there any suggestions of others to challenge Pence in the Primaries?
His main rival at the moment is Donald Trump Jnr, with Haley a distant 3rd
While I usually resist the temptation to quote The West Wing about actual politics, but both Pence and Trump Jr's support is "pure name recognition, a mile wide and an inch deep". I don't know who the 2024 nominee will be, but I strongly suspect it will be neither of them.
If you think the Republican base at the moment are going to rush to select a centrist like Haley in 2024 as their nominee you are more optimistic than me, of course the last time a President lost after only 1 term of his party in 1980 ie Carter, his Vice President Mondale was the Democratic nominee to face Reagan in 1984, on that basis Pence should be favourite to face Biden or Harris in 2024
I'm not confident at all which wing of the party the nominee will be from, I just think that Pence won't want to fight for it (he didn't run in the 2016 primaries, I don't think he wants the internal fight) and I doubt the Trump family will actually run. I reckon they will cash in on media appearances for years but not actually run again, running is hard work with no reward at this point since they have a market for them to sell things to and give them media value for years.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
It's entirely possible to both be alert to racial injustice (i.e. woke), and hold taboo (e.g. anti-immigration) opinions that might get you in trouble at work. I doubt it's even rare.
Mashing together distinct concepts, just because they are associated with one part of the political spectrum and hence correlated, is a barrier to understanding.
Woke is not merely being "alert to racial injustice" (though the term may have originated as such). It is to be obsessed with it, when real or imagined, and to view the world in terms of distinct groups, including groupings by skin colour, rather than as as individuals, and to elevate these groups as victims whether they want to be classified as such or not. And to go on to bully and seek to destroy (literally) via social media those who dare to challenge. And to try to change liberal democracies by creating moralistic and sinister new norms by the use of techniques such as no-platforming and other restraining of free speech. If they could extend this to thought-policing they would. It is illogical, delusional and dangerous.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
It's entirely possible to both be alert to racial injustice (i.e. woke), and hold taboo (e.g. anti-immigration) opinions that might get you in trouble at work. I doubt it's even rare.
Mashing together distinct concepts, just because they are associated with one part of the political spectrum and hence correlated, is a barrier to understanding.
Woke is not merely being "alert to racial injustice" (though the term may have originated as such). It is to be obsessed with it, when real or imagined, and to view the world in terms of distinct groups, including groupings by skin colour, rather than as as individuals, and to elevate these groups as victims whether they want to be classified as such or not. And to go on to bully and seek to destroy (literally) via social media those who dare to challenge. And to try to change liberal democracies by creating moralistic and sinister new norms by the use of techniques such as no-platforming. It is illogical, delusional and dangerous.
I would call that cancel culture rather than woke, because not all people describing themselves as woke are as militant as that. It can be a generic term of abuse against anyone progressive, or it can capture something specifically restrictive or over-divisive, I would say.
Looks like the floor to Biden now is 306 ECVs which means he does at least as well as Trump 2016 ECV-wise.
Be fun to see him gain either Alaska or North Carolina to make is complete.
Yes it's really starting to look like a comprehensive, clear victory.
306, with the biggest popular vote mandate of any US president in history.
Not too shabby.
It's certainly not the biggest popular vote mandate - his lead is only about 4-5 percentage points I understand. Obama in 2008 was 7.3%, Reagan in 1984 was 18.2% and Nixon in 1972 was 23%. Much more emphatic mandates, albeit from smaller electorates.
Of course, George Washington, who ran unopposed, had, by definition, the biggest popular vote mandate ever - a full 100%.
Joseph R Biden Jr will win more votes cast than any other presidential candidate in US history.
F##k me, if a random sod like me off the interwebs can spot there was a problem with those 2 slides as soon as i saw them, i worry about the quality of our scientific advisors if they can't spot it.
Either our scientific advisors need replacing because they don't understand the basics of mathematical modelling or they need replacing because they have misled the public.
To come from 25 points behind to 5 points ahead is extraordinary.
Keep believing that. In reality the government received a massive incumbency/lockdown boost early in the year. Happened all over the world as the pandemic hit, and we all pulled together. Fatigue has now hit, its unwound and we are 10 years into Conservative government (either coalition, confidence and supply or majority). Its also meaningless. Give it a year, working vaccines, economic recovery following a fig leaf trade deal with the EU and most folk will go back to giving as much attention to politics as always (pretty much none).
Johnson is doing his best to pretend it isn’t a Conservative government like we’ve had before, though.
Things not panning out quite as one hoped in the National Populism:The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy stakes? Get thee to a C17th safe space.
If you will recall I voted Remain, you are the one pushing populist nationalism more than me
Really? REALLY? After what you came out with yesterday?
Yes, the SNP are a major threat to this country with their nationalist agenda
Yep. How tragic for the Middle Englander that Scots don’t like England and would like to do their own thing.
55% of Scots voted No to independence in 2014, if you wish to appease the nationalists that is your affair, I will never do so, for me the SNP are even more the enemy than Corbyn Labour were
If you've mistreated the dog you can't really complain when it tries to run off.
(with apols to our Scottish friends and partners for the unwarranted comparison)
To come from 25 points behind to 5 points ahead is extraordinary.
Keep believing that. In reality the government received a massive incumbency/lockdown boost early in the year. Happened all over the world as the pandemic hit, and we all pulled together. Fatigue has now hit, its unwound and we are 10 years into Conservative government (either coalition, confidence and supply or majority). Its also meaningless. Give it a year, working vaccines, economic recovery following a fig leaf trade deal with the EU and most folk will go back to giving as much attention to politics as always (pretty much none).
Johnson is doing his best to pretend it isn’t a Conservative government like we’ve had before, though.
F##k me, if a random sod like me off the interwebs can spot there was a problem with those 2 slides as soon as i saw them, i worry about the quality of our scientific advisors if they can't spot it.
Either our scientific advisors need replacing because they don't understand the basics of mathematical modelling or they need replacing because they have misled the public.
What about the political interface and scrutiny between the scientists and the briefing to the public?
We are asking why Trump has got so many votes but why aren't we asking why Biden also got so many votes?
Yes, it's the biggest vote total of any US president ever – that's not an inconsequential statistic.
Trumps 2020 tally being the second biggest of any candidate ever does make it a little inconsequential I think
I wonder if 2020 will be to the Republicans what 1951 is to Labour? Okay, Labour got more votes than the Tories and lost, but it's not hard to imagine the Republicans struggling to get more votes than Trump got this year.
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Months ago, I thought it was unclear who out of Sanders and Biden would be more successful against Trump. The argument for Biden being well-understood here, the arguments for Sanders being entusiasm plus the centre has been redefined, and on the elite-vs-people scale he is actually more centrist.
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
Judging by some of the quite surprising state polls we saw before Sanders exited the race, and the extraordinary ones we saw in places like Utah, which HYUFD drew attention to it, personally I think Sanders could have exceeded Biden's turnout in some areas, and lost out in other suburban areas across the country, leading to a similarly tied rice. However, we'll never know, obviously.
Certainly possible Sanders would have done worse in Florida (which Biden lost anyway, so doesn't matter) but better in places like Michigan (which Biden won anyway so also doesn't matter). Might have been a clearer victory in EC terms but closer in terms of popular vote, but who knows?
If Trump's false claims that Biden is a socialist coming after your property and money resonated, just think how much more strongly that claim would have worked against Bernie. I think a lot of 'burbs would have stayed in the Trump column in a Trump/Sanders match up, enough to give Trump the win.
Not really - the key evidence in the article is from Luntz, and he was on TV last night explaining that many Trumpers think polling is part of some conspiracy and dont respond to the questions - as it says in the article. So very little to do with 'wokeness' and more to do with Republican base paranoia and all the QAnon crap.
That's confirmation bias. Some Trumpers no doubt feel that way, but there was also a lot of error in college graduate support for Trump:
"This may explain why the polls didn’t do badly in predicting the white non-graduate vote but failed miserably among white graduates. According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right."
Thanks for sharing the article as it's interesting, but labelling it as being about Wokeness is highly misleading. It's about taboo opinions, at some points incorrectly called political correctness in the article (but arguably PC has come to mean that). Wokness is something completely different.
The arguments made in the article, both about shy trumpers and about non-responders, are familiar and mostly dismissed here. But the argument is made quite well. To take one example: the lack of difference between phone and online polls may not refute the shy trumper theory.
But it's worth pointing out that the election hasn't been as horrendous for the pollsters as we initially thought.
Wokeness is about taboo opinions - because it's about being seen to be 'Woke' to intersectional injustice and therefore you must say and nod along to the right things in professional circles.
This absolutely affects me in the UK. I work for an extremely Woke company where my views on identity politics, Brexit and the Conservatives would sink my career like a stone if they knew about them - so I keep my mouth shut, whilst quietly and privately working against it in the background, and voting accordingly.
That's partly why I come on here to let off steam.
You're welcome.
It's entirely possible to both be alert to racial injustice (i.e. woke), and hold taboo (e.g. anti-immigration) opinions that might get you in trouble at work. I doubt it's even rare.
Mashing together distinct concepts, just because they are associated with one part of the political spectrum and hence correlated, is a barrier to understanding.
Woke is not merely being "alert to racial injustice" (though the term may have originated as such). It is to be obsessed with it, when real or imagined, and to view the world in terms of distinct groups, including groupings by skin colour, rather than as as individuals, and to elevate these groups as victims whether they want to be classified as such or not. And to go on to bully and seek to destroy (literally) via social media those who dare to challenge. And to try to change liberal democracies by creating moralistic and sinister new norms by the use of techniques such as no-platforming and other restraining of free speech. If they could extend this to thought-policing they would. It is illogical, delusional and dangerous.
In one work place, they had an American HR lady, would made stirring up trouble in bizarre ways a fetish. She certainly didn't understand UK employment law - and broke it several times.
Her pinnacle of stupidity was to claim that protecting employees from bullying by other employees was "anti-feminist" - because women bullying other women is a right or something.
To come from 25 points behind to 5 points ahead is extraordinary.
Keep believing that. In reality the government received a massive incumbency/lockdown boost early in the year. Happened all over the world as the pandemic hit, and we all pulled together. Fatigue has now hit, its unwound and we are 10 years into Conservative government (either coalition, confidence and supply or majority). Its also meaningless. Give it a year, working vaccines, economic recovery following a fig leaf trade deal with the EU and most folk will go back to giving as much attention to politics as always (pretty much none).
Johnson is doing his best to pretend it isn’t a Conservative government like we’ve had before, though.
Yes and it worked last December, but it's still fact and cannot be held off forever.
The whole GOP after Trump thing is super interesting. I thought Rebbecca Long Bailey was nailed on for leader instead of Keir.
I think now is definitely the time for them to put forwards a sane centre right candidate. Biden is going to be a weak POTUS, a slim house majority beholden to progressives and no majority in the senate. A sane Republican could really clean up.
I expect it will be some mentalist like Ted Cruz.
Somebody summed it up well here in that you have three GOP wings - the free traders, the protectionists and the social conservatives. I think you can forget about the free trade part of the party, especially after Trump's rant about Big Tech and Wall Street. That has effectively doomed anyone from that side, because the Trump base will never accept them. Same with the likes of anyone from the Kasich / Flake mould who are seen as traitors.
So you are left with the two other parts. I think the socially conservative side are quite happy to sit things out because (a) they feel they control the SC and (b) the GOP leadership under Trump gave them what they wanted. Also, given the realignment that is going on (more Hispanic voters, also some Black voters to the GOP driven by socially conservative values), they will be happy to stay under the radar.
So you are left with the protectionist wing. I think someone like Tom Cotton could do very well. A lot will also depend on whether Biden lasts the term. If he is replaced by Harris, then that could change the dynamics.
This is basically the same argument various righties are making. Because Biden didn't take Texas he's a failure.
Joe's won the argument and the election. I suspect that's something Corbynites cannot process.
Sanders and Corbyn were *not* the same. Sanders' communication with working-class voters in key ex-industrial areas was far, far better than Corbyn's, for a start. His healthcare and green spending plans are also standard social democratic practice in Europe. His only real mistake was in refusing to distance himself from the "Socialist" label, whatever the policies, which, for far too many Americans, is still automatically equivalent to the Stalinist gulag.
Even with that handicap, he had a huge grassroots base and enthusiasm to build on, much more cross-culturally than some of the other Democrats, making any Sanders-Trump matchup likely very close too, both with strong working-class support.
Months ago, I thought it was unclear who out of Sanders and Biden would be more successful against Trump. The argument for Biden being well-understood here, the arguments for Sanders being entusiasm plus the centre has been redefined, and on the elite-vs-people scale he is actually more centrist.
The first of those arguments for Sanders was refuted by the turnout. Biden did not underperform in terms of getting out the vote. The second argumemt became less of an issue due to pandemic, as the importance of competent government became unmissable (not that Biden exudes competence, but his politics is associated with it).
I'm now pretty sure that Sanders would have done worse than Biden.
Judging by some of the quite surprising state polls we saw before Sanders exited the race, and the extraordinary ones we saw in places like Utah, which HYUFD drew attention to it, personally I think Sanders could have exceeded Biden's turnout in some areas, and lost out in other suburban areas across the country, leading to a similarly tied rice. However, we'll never know, obviously.
Certainly possible Sanders would have done worse in Florida (which Biden lost anyway, so doesn't matter) but better in places like Michigan (which Biden won anyway so also doesn't matter). Might have been a clearer victory in EC terms but closer in terms of popular vote, but who knows?
If Trump's false claims that Biden is a socialist coming after your property and money resonated, just think how much more strongly that claim would have worked against Bernie. I think a lot of 'burbs would have stayed in the Trump column in a Trump/Sanders match up, enough to give Trump the win.
Totally agree. Sanders would have done worse that Clinton
Comments
It's happened before a little bit with third world debt, so not impossible.
Quite amusing. The central prediction in the new forecast is actually worse than the original one. I don't see that mentioned in the article.
This is why Trump 2024 has a not-insignificant chance of happening. Personally I don’t think he’ll do it, he’ll just continue to stir the grievances like a king over the water, but it’s possible.
EDIT: I should also point out that (and sorry to be blunt) that Trump has a not insubstantial chance of either being in jail, too ill or dead by 2024. He’s an overweight man in his 70s whose main diet is McDonald’s and milkshakes. Say what you want about Joe Biden and his mental slowdown but physically he’s in much better shape.
It's that sort of independent place.
When I went to bed I thought 4k
Not sure what is left but cashed out 90% just in case Military that i have no clue how it breaks makes it even tighter than 4k
If you cant cash out I wouldnt worry too much but i am being ultra conservative
A pandemic virus is also not suited to the much more libertarian and anti-government instincts of most of his supporters.
Mashing together distinct concepts, just because they are associated with one part of the political spectrum and hence correlated, is a barrier to understanding.
IF they let QAnon fester they are super fucked.
Anyway, c'mon, it's just a politics forum. It's been a great ride, this WH2020, sounds like we both made good money on it, and everybody posts what they want to post.
On our bet, you are actually in the clear.
We had 2 bets of £25 each. The original bet I win since Trump has lost. But the 2nd bet was on the margin of his defeat. I said he would not get to 200 in the EC and he's looking like 232. So I lost that one.
Net net flat.
I expect it will be some mentalist like Ted Cruz.
Be fun to see him gain either Alaska or North Carolina to make is complete.
When I first gave my forecast of 180k to Biden it was base on around 450k votes still needing to be counted that didn't actually exist.
306, with the biggest popular vote mandate of any US president in history.
Not too shabby.
Yes, it's the biggest vote total of any US president ever – that's not an inconsequential statistic.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1324675196578598912?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8919913/Chilling-government-graphs-showing-second-wave-deaths-soaring-Mays-peak-WRONG.html
F##k me, if a random sod like me off the interwebs can spot there was a problem with those 2 slides as soon as i saw them, i worry about the quality of our scientific advisors if they can't spot it.
Either our scientific advisors need replacing because they don't understand the basics of mathematical modelling or they need replacing because they have misled the public.
Of course, George Washington, who ran unopposed, had, by definition, the biggest popular vote mandate ever - a full 100%.
"The best of Both Worlds' as a certain political campaign claimed.
Oh and make Brett Kavanaugh AG.
Then sack him after a day.
That's quite something.
Two counties with a negative number of mail ballots to count.
Why is there no counting down there?
Her pinnacle of stupidity was to claim that protecting employees from bullying by other employees was "anti-feminist" - because women bullying other women is a right or something.
i think it could be as high as 80k if ALL the votes are counted but it wont reach 100k
Seriously.
There you go - a floating tunnel tethered to the sea floor. What could go wrong with that?
So you are left with the two other parts. I think the socially conservative side are quite happy to sit things out because (a) they feel they control the SC and (b) the GOP leadership under Trump gave them what they wanted. Also, given the realignment that is going on (more Hispanic voters, also some Black voters to the GOP driven by socially conservative values), they will be happy to stay under the radar.
So you are left with the protectionist wing. I think someone like Tom Cotton could do very well. A lot will also depend on whether Biden lasts the term. If he is replaced by Harris, then that could change the dynamics.