Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
Did he eat a Big Mac or a Quarter pounder?
Don’t you mean a Royale with Cheese?
No, because that would be a Quarter pounder with cheese. A quarter pounder in the McDonalds menu has never had any cheese in its construction.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
I think you’re quietly getting quite enthusiastic about a Trump victory, and I sense a few posters here are. The frisson of owning the libs is starting to outweigh the downsides of electing a narcissistic wannabe dictator.
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
Starmer shows his political tin ear by appointing Gauke rather than any of the hundreds of Labour MPs angling for promotion.
What happened to Timpson?
He is the proper invisible man.
I wonder if Timpson, when approached, accepted the position as an honour, or perhaps as a duty. Maybe in depth reviews are really not his bag. I see that, following this appointment, he stepped down as chief executive officer of Timpson and chair of the Prison Reform Trust. Maybe there is a conflict of interest given his strong views on the subject? It is strange.
aiui Timpson is about what to do once they are out, whereas Gauke is more how long do they get. They are separate questions. What concerns me is that neither man is a Labour MP which is probably bad for party management and might imply concern for headlines over results.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
Both Elon Musk and Melania Trump had somewhat irregular immigration statuses. Yet somehow I don’t think they’ll be deported.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
Ronald Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.
I'm happy to offer you good odds on such an outcome if you'd like.
A very close election this one! No Landslide bets!
Like all of us you've presumably bet heavily - what bets have you made?
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
Ronald Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.
I'm happy to offer you good odds on such an outcome if you'd like.
A very close election this one! No Landslide bets!
Like all of us you've presumably bet heavily - what bets have you made?
To be honest. I have not bet a lot. I bet on Blair winning and Cameron winning against Miliband.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
How quickly people forget. Even the owners of this very site were briefly scared by the long arm of the law into threatening expulsion of members. Not for inciting violence or racial hatred, but for what would otherwise count as normal civic discussion in a free society.
But then again our new prime minister thought it was dangerous and reckless to allow citizens to show their faces uncovered even after the vaccine programme. And half the people here fully agreed.
That entirely misrepresents what OGH's acolyte warned us about.
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
Starmer shows his political tin ear by appointing Gauke rather than any of the hundreds of Labour MPs angling for promotion.
What happened to Timpson?
He is the proper invisible man.
I wonder if Timpson, when approached, accepted the position as an honour, or perhaps as a duty. Maybe in depth reviews are really not his bag. I see that, following this appointment, he stepped down as chief executive officer of Timpson and chair of the Prison Reform Trust. Maybe there is a conflict of interest given his strong views on the subject? It is strange.
aiui Timpson is about what to do once they are out, whereas Gauke is more how long do they get. They are separate questions. What concerns me is that neither man is a Labour MP which is probably bad for party management and might imply concern for headlines over results.
These are jobs that aren’t usually done by sitting MPs, so, no, there isn’t an issue with Labour backbenchers being passed over. They were never in the running.
Starmer shows his political tin ear by appointing Gauke rather than any of the hundreds of Labour MPs angling for promotion.
What happened to Timpson?
He is the proper invisible man.
I wonder if Timpson, when approached, accepted the position as an honour, or perhaps as a duty. Maybe in depth reviews are really not his bag. I see that, following this appointment, he stepped down as chief executive officer of Timpson and chair of the Prison Reform Trust. Maybe there is a conflict of interest given his strong views on the subject? It is strange.
aiui Timpson is about what to do once they are out, whereas Gauke is more how long do they get. They are separate questions. What concerns me is that neither man is a Labour MP which is probably bad for party management and might imply concern for headlines over results.
David Gauke was Secretary of State for Justice from January 2018 to July 2019 when Bozo fired him.
So he probably has a better idea on how the justice system actually works than the other options - plus it means that if some prison sentences are likely to be reduced the person taking the blame is a former Tory rather than Labour directly.
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Interesting. You may well be right about Arizona. Nevada I agree with you.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
Did he eat a Big Mac or a Quarter pounder?
He eats a lot of McDonalds, but I don't recall whether it's been reported what his meal of choice generally is. Personally I like to mix it up and have nuggets and one of the smaller cheeseburgers.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landlslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
I'm going for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia flip, giving Trump a narrow victory.
Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins · 5h BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
What about the Lab councillor who called for throat-slitting?
My point exactly. That isn't shouty trolling. I don't know that case or the context or the outcome, but calling for throat slitting and inciting an enraged crowd bent on such things is a mega serious offence.
I don’t personally think that “calling for” anything should be a police matter. But then I’m an extreme liberal on this and don’t think we should have any “conspiracy to commit” offences since they mean you haven’t actually done anything.
'Calling for' will all depend on context and words.
But the abolition of all criminality for realistically planning to, for example, commit mass murder, burn down Buckingham Palace, commit sexual crimes against children and so on, merely because you have been stopped before you actually acted on the plan would not be a great idea.
The Holly Willoughby case comes to mind as an example.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
What about the Lab councillor who called for throat-slitting?
My point exactly. That isn't shouty trolling. I don't know that case or the context or the outcome, but calling for throat slitting and inciting an enraged crowd bent on such things is a mega serious offence.
I don’t personally think that “calling for” anything should be a police matter. But then I’m an extreme liberal on this and don’t think we should have any “conspiracy to commit” offences since they mean you haven’t actually done anything.
Incitement to criminal activity has been a crime since law and order moved beyond mob violence.
Yes, but I am posting an a forum rather than actually running a country, so I get to take a purist liberal view.
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Interesting. You may well be right about Arizona. Nevada I agree with you.
I was in Nevada last week, and you would have no idea there was an election even on.
Compared to even Los Angeles, it was a deadzone for political campaigning.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
Both Elon Musk and Melania Trump had somewhat irregular immigration statuses. Yet somehow I don’t think they’ll be deported.
There's plenty of what about to go round, on both sides as we've seen.
But the mass deportation policy is simply mad. Unless you actually want a police state, which is what it would require.
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins · 5h BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
Ronald Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.
I'm happy to offer you good odds on such an outcome if you'd like.
A very close election this one! No Landslide bets!
Like all of us you've presumably bet heavily - what bets have you made?
To be honest. I have not bet a lot. I bet on Blair winning and Cameron winning against Miliband.
Wow. You must have felt gutted when you'd missed out on Brian Rose!?
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
How quickly people forget. Even the owners of this very site were briefly scared by the long arm of the law into threatening expulsion of members. Not for inciting violence or racial hatred, but for what would otherwise count as normal civic discussion in a free society.
But then again our new prime minister thought it was dangerous and reckless to allow citizens to show their faces uncovered even after the vaccine programme. And half the people here fully agreed.
That entirely misrepresents what OGH's acolyte warned us about.
Question - Mamesbury, I keep getting mistaken for a racist? How can I fix this?
Don’t set immigrants on fire. Don’t advocate setting immigrants on fire.
What, not even a little one?
Especially not small immigrants, no
But….
No buts. You have to go cold turkey on the whole thing.
This is terrible advice. You're missing the classic bit of PB framing that goes as follows:
IF we don't do [x] then MUCH WORSE thing [y] will happen.
e.g. IF we don't elect Farage than a MUCH WORSE dictator who is LITERALLY Hitler will come along instead.
Shouty capitals are optional, but encouraged.
Which tends to be a deliberate misunderstanding of
1) there are genuine issues. 2) if we don’t come up with non-fucked-in-the-head-solution to these issues, then Nigel Farage et al will propose their, fucked-in-the-head-solution 3) screaming in capitals that there is no issue won’t work.
Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins · 5h BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
I think the Democrats are better, but they seem worse, because they don't have a compelling single story.
This is the modern problem of the Left throughout the West.
Reality - Whoever is in charge things are not going to be as good as it was for previous generations Fantasy - Things will be great if only we get rid of those boring realists
Reality would be a tough sell on its own, but when the billionaire class back the fantasists as an easy way to avoid any scrutiny the fantasists are going to win, not every time, but in general. Each time they do trust and faith in the system declines further once they inevitably fail.
I agree to a large extent, but, however. this manipulative plutocrat class, who generally are not interested in people's living conditions, and might back issues like Brexit, or Trump, for their own reasons, also seem to understand the importance of emotionally in politics much better.
If you're going to counter an extremely powerful group of emotional appeals offered by the right - security, identity, continuity, punishment, vengeance, local belonging, and much else - you're going to have to much better than the modern left is doing. You need to make *everyone*, across all social, cultural and ethnic barriers, *feel better* on themselves for adopting a more leftwing agenda. Material promises and hope are obviously am important part of that, but not all, I would say.
I'm not particularly left or right and see it more as a battle between realists and fantasists. Corbyn sold a nice fantasy too.
I think there is a lot that governments can do to make us happier and healthier and little they can do to make us richer (although they can make us poorer with bad choices). Not sure how to sell it as so much of politics is focused on finances and it is the easiest to measure.
I pretty much agree with this. Except (since I am on the left) I'd add "more equal" to your "happier and healthier" (indeed I think it's a prerequisite of those).
Personally I think life is a lot better for most people in the West than it used to be, but we have a tendency to look on the dark side. I don't understand why the elderly tend to be more right-wing - I don't feel the slightest urge to vote Tory or further right at age 74, and would cheerfully vote for higher taxes to finance more foreign aid. I do feel a sneaking sense of indifference - I'd be sorry to think that the human race died out in 100 years, but to some extent feel that younger generations can choose how they want to live. The exception is that the dice are clearly still very much loaded to people in countries that are relatively wealthy and at peace.
Have you ever considered that you're a bit weird?
I suspect that most of us here are a bit weird, really, but it's a place for honest chat.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landlslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
I'm going for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia flip, giving Trump a narrow victory.
Most people on here seem to think it’s very close, and I’d guess probably 60:40 are predicting Trump. I’m expecting a Trump victory, but a narrow one.
A narrow Harris victory is not necessarily a feasibility. I think it’s either Trump landslide, Trump narrow victory, Harris landslide, or contested election that goes to the Supreme Court and is awarded to Trump.
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
You weren't making a cogent and relevant point but this one's OK, so I'll engage. These voters are low information because they are not interested in politics hence why I said I was using the term neutrally. They don't understand the consequence of their vote because of that lack of information and interest. I didn't say they were dumb and to be clear I don't think they are.
lol indeed. PB’s “analysis” of this election is quite pitifully poor and simplistic and biased - with some noble exceptions
Lots and lots and lots of intelligent, aware, high information American voters are going to vote for Trump, even tho they are unhappily cognisant of his multiple flaws
Why? Because, as one despairing educated American put it to me on my last visit “incredibly, the Democrats are even worse”
Genuine question - why did your "despairing educated American" think the Democrats are even worse?
Wokeness, anti whiteness, defund police idiocy, crime, migration, collapsing democrat cities, all the wars under Biden
Crime has fallen under Biden. 'Defund police' isn't a thing. The cities aren't 'collapsing'. The U.S. government has no control over either Putin or Hamas. I'll give you half a point on immigration - but note the Congressional GOP has repeatedly sabotaged Democratic efforts to legislate.
Crime has worsened under Biden in part and in places Defund police was definitely a thing You forgot the "mostly peaceful" BLM riots You ignore Wokeness, anti whiteness and the Trans Black LGBTQIAAA+ DEI horror show Immigration is a disaster Democrat cities like Frisco are a fucking trainwreck Biden was seen as weak, Putin invaded
It's easy to say crime has fallen when theft and drug dealing has been decriminalised.
Crime hasn't fallen, the police just don't record it any longer. Speak to any American about it and suggest to them that crime is falling because the official statistics say so and they'll laugh you out of the room.
The FBI just revised their crime statistics for 2022, such that violent crime was actually up 4% rather than down 2% as originally recorded. They missed 1,600 murders from the original stats.
And that's up 4% even after bug chunks of the west coast stopped recording theft under $500 and drug dealing, but yes "crime is down". Like fuck is crime down, it's worse than ever and I think one of the major drivers of Trump doing well. People yearn for safe streets and parcels not being stolen from their doorsteps again.
Yep. People can literally see stores locking away items that were never locked away before. They can see stores closing DOWN because of shoplifting
This is their lived experience. No folder full of statistics is gonna persuade them otherwise
"gonna" ... lol.
That's the calibre of your response to what is a fair point @Leon makes.
Dear God.
Leon is absolutely right here. In my town on a Friday and a Saturday some businesses have to lock their front doors at 5PM and be careful who they allow in given they have had gangs of kids, some with ski masks and balaclavas on causing trouble inside, being abusive to shop owners and customers.
Now there is minimal crime where I live but crime in the local town is very real, the Police ineffective, and we won't go out there for an evening now.
Do you blame Biden/Harris, too ?
Yes, they are totally responsible for delinquent youths in North East England
But Leon's point is perfectly reasonable, wherever it is happening.
People's lived experience and perception of crime is an issue and certainly some parts of the USA have seen stores closing due to crime.
Again with the "lived experience". Perhaps it is a useful term, after all.
Anyway, reposting this, which no one seems to have read. It's a more sensible analysis of the urban problem in the US, and gives a better idea of how solutions might be thought about.
It's funny how "lived experience" is totally legitimate when it's people complaining about Haitians eating swans or something, but woke lefty nonsense when it's someone who has experienced discrimination or similar.
I actually think it's a useful phrase, particularly when trying to understand why people vote for Trump or Corbyn etc. For me, it's how irritated people are by cyclists going through red lights when the data is clear about how few do it, and how little danger they pose. You can point at spreadsheets or video analysis as much as you want but people are deeply influenced by their inherent biases and what they can see and hear in person.
A key element or a "lived experience" is not how it was at the time, but how you look back on it. I've had breakups where I was reasonably calm and resigned at the time, but weeks or even months later it starts to have a dreadful effect on me.
I agree with this.
There is also an element of anecdata... famously the David Herdson post on here predicting Corbyn was way closer in 2017 than the polls suggested, just by being out on the streets canvassing in the days before.
Often with statistics and large datasets, we're either collecting the wrong data (e.g. crime has fallen, but also more minor crimes are going unreported, thus creating the disconnect between experience and the stats). Or the data itself is being cherry picked to paint a narrative, e.g. being told inflation was super low for the last decade (but everyone feels poorer because of skyrocketing housing costs) or the economy is healthy because there's low unemployment (despite the fact that many of the jobs are zero hours or formerly well paid white collar professionals taking jobs far lower than their skill level to make ends meet).
Intuition matters. A lot.
As someone who has done a lot of market research, I tend to listen to the qual first and only then see what the data says. And if the two don't match, I don't just blindly accept the data over the 'lived experience'. I question the data.
I suppose my conclusion is the opposite - the data is often "right" but people's interpretation of it is different to what you'd expect.
So, there is pervasive sense of unlawfulness in Edinburgh despite all the stats showing the city is light years ahead of where it was in the 90s. That's down to how much more obvious the crime is - kids on e-bikes wearing balaclavas or causing havoc on the buses. Relatively harmless, yet people feel "under siege".
They assume their "lived" experience reflects society as a whole, even though broadly speaking things are significantly better for most.
Oh, I was agreeing with you - that the data is often right, especially when you're dealing with one or two people. "I've seen lots of crime this year, therefore crime must be up". Cognitive bias is the likely culprit.
Where it gets interesting is when you do a lot of qual with numerous people in different places and different walks of life. And they're all saying the same thing but the data doesn't support it.
That's when I start questioning the data. Often you find that either the data is either too narrow in what it's collecting, or it's not focused on the right thing. E.g. GDP is up massively in the last few years! Everyone must be richer. OK, but check how much people are spending as a portion of their income on housing over the same timeframe. Actually, people are poorer.
When people's "lived" experience is telling you one thing but the data is saying something else, it's a danger to just write off the qual as anecdata. Numbers don't always lie, but they don't always tell the full picture. Yet we have a bias towards trusting the data rather than the experiences.
You’re still missing the word “data”. All that qual is data too. If you mean qual v quant data, say so.
Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins · 5h BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
Kamala’s Wins @harris_wins · 5h BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
FWIW: that would be consistent with Harris outperforming in the Rust Belt, which is exactly the opposite of what I predict
Trump has, I believe, improved with black voters and latino voters, it would be amusing if that was countered by Harris improving with white voters.
But I'm quite downbeat on a positive outcome for the Democrats right now, at best it seems reliant upon margin of error falling in their favour in every state that matters, which seems improbable, so I'll believe non-college educated white people are (slightly) less supportive of Trump when I see it.
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
No your maths are wrong.
If Harris holds PA, MI and WI she wins 270-268.
She can afford to lose GA, AZ and NV (and lose NC as Biden did).
English smacking ban being considered by government
The move comes following fresh calls for a ban by the Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza, after the death of 10-year-old Sara Sharif.
A court heard Sara was hooded, burned and beaten over a two-year period as her father, stepmother and uncle stand trial for her murder, which they deny.
I don't think if you are willing to hood, burn and beat your kid regularly over the course of 2 years a smacking ban is going to change your behaviour!
I hate this use of very extreme edge cases to piggy back changes to policy that are irrelevant to that.
Doesn't make any sense at all, which is probably why it will make progress.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
Both Elon Musk and Melania Trump had somewhat irregular immigration statuses. Yet somehow I don’t think they’ll be deported.
There's plenty of what about to go round, on both sides as we've seen.
But the mass deportation policy is simply mad. Unless you actually want a police state, which is what it would require.
Trump and Vance do want a police state, of course. As do many Americans.
This failure of imagination could allow extreme repression within our country as well as a fundamental change in its society and politics.
The Biden administration has deported a very large number of people, more in fact than the previous Trump administration. But it has concentrated its resources on the border itself. Most returned people under the Biden administration are recent border crossers. What Trump and Vance propose is something quite different: to deport all twelve million people who live without documentation in the United States.
Twelve million is a big number. And somehow bigger numbers are hard to imagine. It helps to start with just one person.
Try to picture just one person unwillingly deported: the altered life, the use of force, the effect on those who participate, those who inform, or those who stand by. And now try to do it twice: imagine a second person. And now consider a country with twelve million such scenes. It is a different America, one in which violence is normal and everywhere, one is which we see it and are dulled to it, one in which we all change for the worse.
When you imagined the scene, did you remember the family? Forced deportations are directed against families. About twenty million people in this country are part of a family with mixed documentation status. That means that if the Trump-Vance plan were to proceed, twenty million families would be broken. In most of these cases, that means children losing a parent or both parents.
And now try to imagine someone you know being deported. If you are Latino, someone you know very likely will be deported, and a family you know will almost certainly be broken. After all, we are talking about one in twenty-five families in the country as a whole...
It sounds like the people responsible for allowing the immigration laws to be flouted on such a scale have a lot to answer for.
Glib, but unpersuasive. The US was, and is a nation of immigrants. The crew you favour claim to follow the principles of the founding fathers - and have spent the last four years frustrating any attempts for consensus immigration reform, so they can campaign on this.
Both Elon Musk and Melania Trump had somewhat irregular immigration statuses. Yet somehow I don’t think they’ll be deported.
There's plenty of what about to go round, on both sides as we've seen.
But the mass deportation policy is simply mad. Unless you actually want a police state, which is what it would require.
I think I see a flaw in your argument given the characters of Trump and Vance.
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
How quickly people forget. Even the owners of this very site were briefly scared by the long arm of the law into threatening expulsion of members. Not for inciting violence or racial hatred, but for what would otherwise count as normal civic discussion in a free society.
But then again our new prime minister thought it was dangerous and reckless to allow citizens to show their faces uncovered even after the vaccine programme. And half the people here fully agreed.
That entirely misrepresents what OGH's acolyte warned us about.
Question - Mamesbury, I keep getting mistaken for a racist? How can I fix this?
Don’t set immigrants on fire. Don’t advocate setting immigrants on fire.
What, not even a little one?
Especially not small immigrants, no
But….
No buts. You have to go cold turkey on the whole thing.
This is terrible advice. You're missing the classic bit of PB framing that goes as follows:
IF we don't do [x] then MUCH WORSE thing [y] will happen.
e.g. IF we don't elect Farage than a MUCH WORSE dictator who is LITERALLY Hitler will come along instead.
Shouty capitals are optional, but encouraged.
Which tends to be a deliberate misunderstanding of
1) there are genuine issues. 2) if we don’t come up with non-fucked-in-the-head-solution to these issues, then Nigel Farage et al will propose their, fucked-in-the-head-solution 3) screaming in capitals that there is no issue won’t work.
4) people are indeed coming up with non fucked in the head solutions to these issues 5) poster doesn’t like those specific non fucked in the head solutions because they’re not Faragy enough, 6) back to 2
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.
No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.
So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.
Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
I think you’re quietly getting quite enthusiastic about a Trump victory, and I sense a few posters here are. The frisson of owning the libs is starting to outweigh the downsides of electing a narcissistic wannabe dictator.
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
Err, no. I've said on here repeatedly that's not what I want and I've also said on here repeatedly that posts like this deter anyone from pointing out the flaws in pro-Harris posts and data, and thus suppresses the dispassionate and open sharing of information and arguments we need as rational punters to make money. Quite frankly, it yanks my chain.
I am warning of hubris. I am warning of misinformation and liberal prejudice. A warning that so many of you seem entirely disinclined to take up.
The data we are getting out of the US is just so contradictory and so biased it's probably impossible for any of us to make predictions that are anything other than utter WAGs. Polls are unscientific and/or are biased one way or other, the media is filled with biased reporting, and the only people who probably know how the ground game is going (the campaign managers) probably keep stum about the states and areas they are weak in, whilst boasting about where they are strong (and those boasts might be lies).
Add in the weirdness of the EC, and it is as clear as mud.
How does anyone try to come up with an unbiased prediction? It's bad enough in UK elections, but the American system is almost designed to be unclear.
English smacking ban being considered by government
The move comes following fresh calls for a ban by the Children's Commissioner for England Dame Rachel de Souza, after the death of 10-year-old Sara Sharif.
A court heard Sara was hooded, burned and beaten over a two-year period as her father, stepmother and uncle stand trial for her murder, which they deny.
I don't think if you are willing to hood, burn and beat your kid regularly over the course of 2 years a smacking ban is going to change your behaviour!
I hate this use of very extreme edge cases to piggy back changes to policy that are irrelevant to that.
Doesn't make any sense at all, which is probably why it will make progress.
1) We must do something 2) This something 3) Therefore we must do this
Bit like the recurring demand to reduce the drink driving limit. Despite the fact that drink driving accidents don’t involve “one too many” - nearly every time it is people who’ve ingested quantities of alcohol barely compatible with continued life.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
I think you’re quietly getting quite enthusiastic about a Trump victory, and I sense a few posters here are. The frisson of owning the libs is starting to outweigh the downsides of electing a narcissistic wannabe dictator.
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
Err, no. I've said on here repeatedly that's not what I want and I've also said on here repeatedly that posts like this deter anyone from pointing out the flaws in pro-Harris posts and data, and thus suppresses the dispassionate and open sharing of information and arguments we need as rational punters to make money. Quite frankly, it yanks my chain.
I am warning of hubris. I am warning of misinformation and liberal prejudice. A warning that so many of you seem entirely disinclined to take up.
[ PS. Kudos to you if you did that 👏 ]
But the thing is you’re misreading the consensus on here completely. There are perhaps 2 posters consistently expecting a Harris victory. Probably a similar number confidently expecting a Trump victory. And the rest considering it very close but probably marginally going Trumpwards. I’m not seeing those “so many of you” you refer to.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
I think you’re quietly getting quite enthusiastic about a Trump victory, and I sense a few posters here are. The frisson of owning the libs is starting to outweigh the downsides of electing a narcissistic wannabe dictator.
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
Err, no. I've said on here repeatedly that's not what I want and I've also said on here repeatedly that posts like this deter anyone from pointing out the flaws in pro-Harris posts and data, and thus suppresses the dispassionate and open sharing of information and arguments we need as rational punters to make money. Quite frankly, it yanks my chain.
I am warning of hubris. I am warning of misinformation and liberal prejudice. A warning that so many of you seem entirely disinclined to take up.
[ PS. Kudos to you if you did that 👏 ]
But the thing is you’re misreading the consensus on here completely. There are perhaps 2 posters consistently expecting a Harris victory. Probably a similar number confidently expecting a Trump victory. And the rest considering it very close but probably marginally going Trumpwards. I’m not seeing those “so many of you” you refer to.
I am and I see them whenever the arguments for Trump are put forward in anything other than Americans are a bit thick or being manipulated by the media.
It does absolutely no credit whatsoever to this site.
The data we are getting out of the US is just so contradictory and so biased it's probably impossible for any of us to make predictions that are anything other than utter WAGs. Polls are unscientific and/or are biased one way or other, the media is filled with biased reporting, and the only people who probably know how the ground game is going (the campaign managers) probably keep stum about the states and areas they are weak in, whilst boasting about where they are strong (and those boasts might be lies).
Add in the weirdness of the EC, and it is as clear as mud.
How does anyone try to come up with an unbiased prediction? It's bad enough in UK elections, but the American system is almost designed to be unclear.
It's interesting looking at the Norwegian government wealth fund page with the latest numbers. It equates to around a quarter of a million pounds for each Norwegian (5.6 million people).
Peter Lynch is dead. Please watch this explanation by @IsabelOakeshott. He said some very unwise, daft, bad things. But he did not deserve to die for it. He was a political prisoner in the UK. Two tier justice by @Keir_Starmer killed this man."
Sorry to say but my gut says that you are probably thinking about this backwards. i.e. that Tice outs himself as an extremist for saying this.
More likely he’s reflecting a view point that will be widely held among the electorate, on one of the few political stories of the last year or few with real cut through.
If he’s to avoid a slew of losses to Reform, Starmer is going to have to work very hard indeed to lose the Two Tier tag, if he even yet recognises it as an electoral liability.
You can see the next problem coming along.
Shouty woman gets 2 and a half years for trolling on the internet.
Woman who milkshaked Farage gets what ?
There is a gigantic gulf between a self publicising idiot throwing milkshakes and using words and actions to a large and enraged audience inciting, urging and encouraging them to burn down buildings with people inside them and kill innocent strangers.
Shouty trolling this is not. Shouty trolling is widely available from many sources and is not a criminal offence.
What about the Lab councillor who called for throat-slitting?
My point exactly. That isn't shouty trolling. I don't know that case or the context or the outcome, but calling for throat slitting and inciting an enraged crowd bent on such things is a mega serious offence.
I don’t personally think that “calling for” anything should be a police matter. But then I’m an extreme liberal on this and don’t think we should have any “conspiracy to commit” offences since they mean you haven’t actually done anything.
Incitement to criminal activity has been a crime since law and order moved beyond mob violence.
Yes, but I am posting an a forum rather than actually running a country, so I get to take a purist liberal view.
Does the purist liberal view think that the person who orders a gangland killing, to be performed by another, commits no offence?
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
I think you’re quietly getting quite enthusiastic about a Trump victory, and I sense a few posters here are. The frisson of owning the libs is starting to outweigh the downsides of electing a narcissistic wannabe dictator.
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
Err, no. I've said on here repeatedly that's not what I want and I've also said on here repeatedly that posts like this deter anyone from pointing out the flaws in pro-Harris posts and data, and thus suppresses the dispassionate and open sharing of information and arguments we need as rational punters to make money. Quite frankly, it yanks my chain.
I am warning of hubris. I am warning of misinformation and liberal prejudice. A warning that so many of you seem entirely disinclined to take up.
[ PS. Kudos to you if you did that 👏 ]
But the thing is you’re misreading the consensus on here completely. There are perhaps 2 posters consistently expecting a Harris victory. Probably a similar number confidently expecting a Trump victory. And the rest considering it very close but probably marginally going Trumpwards. I’m not seeing those “so many of you” you refer to.
FWIW I have been sure for months that Trump will win. (Betting warning: If he does I think I am in line to get 1 out of 10 in the New Year competition if anyone remembers that. If not, it's 0).
On those numbers, Trump gets a minimum of 280, even assuming no Michigan and Pennsylvania
With that said, it shows the exact opposite of the numbers posted a day or two ago, which had Harris outperforming in the sunbelt, and Trump in the rust belt. And it also shows Florida as dramatically closer than the NYTimes Siena poll that came out last week
And, of course, if you tip all of the elections just one point to the - errr - left, then the election pivots to the Dems.
I hold by my previous assertion that the Dems will do better in the sun belt than the rust belt. I think the Democrats will manage to squeeze out victories in Arizona and Nevada (where demographic shifts have been in their favour). Conversely, I think they are likely to underperform in Pennsylvania and Michigan, although they may well hang on in Wisconsin.
Meanwhile, Georgia and North Carolina are becoming bluer by the day... probably not enough for Harris this time around, but it's entirely possible that she wins them.
I am with you on most of this. Trump may well get Florida though. Arizona. You believe Harris will win there?
Yes:
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Nevada is an interesting state because Trump arguably underperformed against Clinton and made progress in 2020 but still lost due to the high turnout for Biden. I think he should be the favourite to get over the line this time.
No State has seen a bigger increase in the percentage of graduates than Nevada over the past eight years.
No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.
So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.
Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
In 2022 Nevada the GOP gained the governorship, had a positive swing in the Senate race and got most votes in the combined House races:
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
I've been suggesting the possibility of a landslide for Kamala based on differential turnout and have bet accordingly. Those bets are a little under water at the moment.
Interesting. I am not sure Trump will get Nevada. I have no facts to back it up with. Just my intuition.
The polling is harder to read than in 2016. Back then there was enough data to support the hunch that Trump had a path to win via the rustbelt but this time there's less of a pattern. With that said, if he is ahead in the national PV, it's hard to see how he loses.
Yes. I see. It is just a question of waiting for the final result.
It is. But let's speculate wildly right up to when we can't. That's what this febrile period is for.
After Trump's McDonalds triumph, the chances of a Ronnie Reagan style landslide have surely increased.
If that does happen then it will be one of the biggest misses by the intelligentsia in history.
And lots of posters on here will have egg on their faces.
Has anyone been predicting a landslide in either direction? Pretty much everyone would have egg on their face if it was a landslide, no matter who for.
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
I've been suggesting the possibility of a landslide for Kamala based on differential turnout and have bet accordingly. Those bets are a little under water at the moment.
A landslide beyond either candidate getting all the swing states?
Next to no chance of that.
Both candidates have a non zero chance of getting all the swing states, I think.
Some rather interesting notes on productivity, that great British economic issue of the day, buried right at the bottom of that amusingly gloomy Tejegraph article on the Government's workers' rights policies.
"Officials found.. that there would be a small positive economic effect. Part of the costs would be offset by the beneficial effect of having more productive workers."
It's the French experience. Regulations kills jobs disproportionately at the bottom end. So average productivity goes up, but more unemployment.
French employment law is way worse for employers than Labour proposals...
They will do their best to fix that , give them time.
Comments
By the way I did as you said and told the conference room that I voted Leave and support Trump. The chair thanked me for my interjection and asked whether I knew I was in a meeting to discuss tax rules for digital nomads.
IF we don't do [x] then MUCH WORSE thing [y] will happen.
e.g. IF we don't elect Farage than a MUCH WORSE dictator who is LITERALLY Hitler will come along instead.
Shouty capitals are optional, but encouraged.
I think she will win in Arizona, because people are also voting on an abortion ballot proposition. Polls suggest 65% of people are in favor of Proposition 139, and in other states, abortion ballot propositions have been a major driver of the young female vote.
Trump also lacks the benefit of a strong local Senate candidate to hang on the coattails of. So, for example, I think one of the reasons Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 was because people came out to cast a vote for Ron Johnson.
In Arizona, the Republican Senatorial candidate is Kari Lake. No one other than true Trump believers will be heading to the polls to vote for her.
I think it is entirely possible that Trump sweeps the rust belt, but loses AZ and NV.
(On FL, I think Trump holds it quite easily. I think the State has swung far to the Republicans, and he is likely to be 5+ points ahead there.)
Personally I reckon Trump edges it, winning Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania
So he probably has a better idea on how the justice system actually works than the other options - plus it means that if some prison sentences are likely to be reduced the person taking the blame is a former Tory rather than Labour directly.
Kamala’s Wins
@harris_wins
·
5h
BREAKING: CNN just reported that Donald Trump is losing steam with his biggest base. White, non-college voters are abandoning Trump. This is huge.
https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1848350601190477877
But the abolition of all criminality for realistically planning to, for example, commit mass murder, burn down Buckingham Palace, commit sexual crimes against children and so on, merely because you have been stopped before you actually acted on the plan would not be a great idea.
The Holly Willoughby case comes to mind as an example.
Compared to even Los Angeles, it was a deadzone for political campaigning.
But the mass deportation policy is simply mad.
Unless you actually want a police state, which is what it would require.
FWIW: that would be consistent with Harris outperforming in the Rust Belt, which is exactly the opposite of what I predict
1) there are genuine issues.
2) if we don’t come up with non-fucked-in-the-head-solution to these issues, then Nigel Farage et al will propose their, fucked-in-the-head-solution
3) screaming in capitals that there is no issue won’t work.
A narrow Harris victory is not necessarily a feasibility. I think it’s either Trump landslide, Trump narrow victory, Harris landslide, or contested election that goes to the Supreme Court and is awarded to Trump.
Yours, a professor of research methods
But I'm quite downbeat on a positive outcome for the Democrats right now, at best it seems reliant upon margin of error falling in their favour in every state that matters, which seems improbable, so I'll believe non-college educated white people are (slightly) less supportive of Trump when I see it.
If Harris holds PA, MI and WI she wins 270-268.
She can afford to lose GA, AZ and NV (and lose NC as Biden did).
NB. Assuming she holds NE2.
Serious Fraud Office probe £112m Unite union hotel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5z54236wgo
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cvgwgrld8v2o
5) poster doesn’t like those specific non fucked in the head solutions because they’re not Faragy enough,
6) back to 2
NEW THREAD
No demographic group is more Democratic than graduates. And the Dems hung on there at the midterms.
So, I'd reckon the Dems should be favorite to hold onto Nevada. (With the disclaimer, of course, that anything is possible. It could be Trump by 5 or Harris by 5.
Worth noting that Nevada also has an abortion access measure on the ballot, but abortion is not such a hot topic there, because there's a Democratic majority in the State House and Senate, which means we haven't seen the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by passing an unpopular ban.
I am warning of hubris. I am warning of misinformation and liberal prejudice. A warning that so many of you seem entirely disinclined to take up.
[ PS. Kudos to you if you did that 👏 ]
Add in the weirdness of the EC, and it is as clear as mud.
How does anyone try to come up with an unbiased prediction? It's bad enough in UK elections, but the American system is almost designed to be unclear.
2) This something
3) Therefore we must do this
Bit like the recurring demand to reduce the drink driving limit. Despite the fact that drink driving accidents don’t involve “one too many” - nearly every time it is people who’ve ingested quantities of alcohol barely compatible with continued life.
It does absolutely no credit whatsoever to this site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nevada_gubernatorial_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Nevada
Next to no chance of that.
Both candidates have a non zero chance of getting all the swing states, I think.