politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This week’s PB/Polling Matters Podcast looks ahead to Iowa
Options
Comments
-
Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
0 -
I'm very wary of Luntz focus group polls, since all the other national and state polling shows drastically different results, and of course he's a focus group guy not a polling guy.TheScreamingEagles said:From that same poll
In a three-way race with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Clinton, Bloomberg would receive 28% of the vote. Clinton, meanwhile, would come out on top with 37% while Cruz would take 34%.
And even his focus groups are a bit shady (I still remember his focus group after the first GOP debate in which no one voted for Trump and everyone hated him).0 -
Oh I know, I wasn't getting at Sean at all. another_richard seemed to manage to tidy it up a bit too.Casino_Royale said:
I am not sure if I agree with his point. There are certainly some who are my party right or wrong but they are thankfully fairly rare on here (Nats excepted of course).
Personally, I get increasingly irked about the ever more ridiculous bribing of the older voters and recognise that the Tories are even more at fault for that than Labour. And this is despite being no spring chicken myself. If we are to keep these absurd bribes like HRT paying pensioners on free bus passes and TV licences as well as additional allowances and exemption from NI we can at least cut the tax relief on their pension contributions.0 -
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.another_richard said:
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed fromSean_F said:
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.0 -
I'm really glad I got him to do his pieces for PB.another_richard said:Look forward to it.
Your articles really do deserve a wider audience.0 -
As I said Peter and Paul.SquareRoot said:
And why should the rich be subsidised.??. There are loads of people retiring on gold plated pensions whilst the rest have to live on not a lot.. If the rich want high pensions they can bloody well pay for them themselves without taxpayer subsidy. Times have changed from the 90'sanother_richard said:
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed fromSean_F said:
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
I wouldn't vote Labour EVER, but on this George is right. Too many people have got really rich and they don't need these allowances..
There was the same whining when MIRAS was cut by Lawson and then removed by Brown altogether.
0 -
That's fair enough, David.DavidL said:
Oh I know, I wasn't getting at Sean at all. another_richard seemed to manage to tidy it up a bit too.Casino_Royale said:
I am not sure if I agree with his point. There are certainly some who are my party right or wrong but they are thankfully fairly rare on here (Nats excepted of course).
Personally, I get increasingly irked about the ever more ridiculous bribing of the older voters and recognise that the Tories are even more at fault for that than Labour. And this is despite being no spring chicken myself. If we are to keep these absurd bribes like HRT paying pensioners on free bus passes and TV licences as well as additional allowances and exemption from NI we can at least cut the tax relief on their pension contributions.0 -
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
0 -
Oh my word, my cringe-o-meter has just broken0
-
Indeed, Dan Hodges lost his eye in a bar fight defending a black guy from racists, and now he's U-Turning on immigration.Casino_Royale said:
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.another_richard said:
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed fromSean_F said:
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.0 -
I don't think it's as simple as that. Bloomberg picks up the Republican business vote, the Jewish vote, and the moderate Hillary hating Democrat vote.Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
Interestingly, in Blomberg's reelection campaign in new York, he picked up more that 50% of the black vote, despite being a Jewish Republican0 -
A real good one from the Daily Mash.
"'Northern Powerhouse' department to close Sheffield office and move 247 jobs to London"
http://tinyurl.com/gpndnyg
0 -
Log-off, and go and have a nice glass of wine mate.tyson said:PbCom has really just turned into a right wing site where, in light of having no lefties standing anymore, relies on righties squabbling with each other.
I posted last night that I thought it was pretty disgusting that Cameron brought up his dead child in the debates last year to neutralise the NHS, something I have said on a number of occasions. The responses I got back was akin to murdering the child myself.
Cameron is an opportunistic politician- from his admiration to Blair, hoody hugging, migrant baiting, I think there is very little he thinks about other than himself. Which in modern standards is pretty par for the course for a politician. Quite how so many people, particularly those here, lap it up is certainly surprising.
In fact, I will do the same.0 -
According to the last actual poll, Bloomberg gets 8-10% of republicans vs 8-14% of democrats and 10-18% of independents depending on the candidate of each party.Danny565 said:
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
0 -
I see that poll says that Bloomberg (logically enough) performs best with independents.... is there a list anywhere of the states with the highest % of independent voters?rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Bloomberg picks up the Republican business vote, the Jewish vote, and the moderate Hillary hating Democrat vote.Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
Interestingly, in Blomberg's reelection campaign in new York, he picked up more that 50% of the black vote, despite being a Jewish Republican0 -
Indeed but lets pretend for a minute that UKIP hadn't done anything in 2012 (we're discounting their impact) and that after the briefings etc that had followed the rebellion in January 2013 Cameron got up and said something along the lines of "we won't let matters rest [but aren't going to do anything or have any referendum]" then what would the 81 rebels have done? They could and would have made Cameron's tenure as PM utterly unbearable.Casino_Royale said:
All sorts of things are briefed to the media all the time. Not all of them come to fruition, so you can't go back and selectively pick the ones that support your case.Philip_Thompson said:Cameron pledged the referendum in January 2013 but as the article says that pledge was by then "long awaited". It was being briefed much sooner than that Cameron was changing course.
It may have taken just over a year between the rebellion in Oct 2011 and the announcement in January 2013 but you don't think Cameron was doing nothing at all in that year until he was spooked by UKIP do you? It's already come out that well before the announcement he'd already much earlier discussed the issue with Merkel and briefed her that he was going to call a referendum, you don't think he did that in January 2013 do you?
For example, if Osborne goes through with the pensions hike it will be reported as "long expected". If his leaking to the media creates such a kickback from his support base that he backtracks the report will be "listens" and "u-turns". He may, or may not - probably the latter - brief out again that his course has changed. Or he may leave it as a rabbit.
Politics is a game of smoke & mirrors, as much as it is of "fact", and it responds to political pressures.
The rebellion was big enough that it needed to be dealt with. UKIP are a sideshow to that.0 -
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
What would happen if two candidates tied in a state’s popular vote, or if there was a dispute as to the winner?
A tie is a statistically remote possibility even in smaller states. But if a state’s popular vote were to come out as a tie between candidates, state law would govern as to what procedure would be followed in breaking the tie. A tie would not be known of until late November or early December, after a recount and after the Secretary of State had certified the election results. Federal law would allow a state to hold a run-off election.
A very close finish could also result in a run-off election or legal action to decide the winner. Under Federal law (3 U.S.C. section 5), state law governs on this issue, and would be conclusive in determining the selection of Electors. The law provides that if states have laws to determine controversies or contests as to the selection of Electors, those determinations must be completed six days prior to the day the Electors meet.
What impact does a candidate’s concession speech have on the Electoral College process?
None. A candidate’s concession speech does not impact the states’ duties and responsibilities related to the Electoral College system.
How many times has the Vice President been chosen by the U.S. Senate?
Once. In the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no2700 -
All parties have an element like that.Casino_Royale said:
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.another_richard said:
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed fromSean_F said:
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.
Political fans do have similarities to football fans but supporting a political party allows some people to think of themselves as 'intellectual' or of 'working for the national good / noble cause'.
0 -
0
-
Just saying it as it is. Labour needs to move on as it will not win this battle with the voterSpeedy said:
Indeed, Dan Hodges lost his eye in a bar fight defending a black guy from racists, and now he's U-Turning on immigration.Casino_Royale said:
There is a cadre of party loyalists for whom supporting the blue rosette is like cheering on a football team, regardless of the type of game it plays.another_richard said:
Reminiscent of how some PB Tories changed fromSean_F said:
He's right, though. There was a surprising degree of hostility, among people who call themselves Conservatives towards the better off. Had Gordon Brown proposed cutting tax relief on pensions, there would have been unanimous fury, but if George Osborne does so, it's fine.
'Disgraceful, threat to skilled workers, class envy at its worst'
when it was suggested Labour would cut the lifetime pension allowance to
'Totally right, why should the rich be subsidised this way'
when Osborne did it.0 -
AM's articles really should be collated and published as a whole with perhaps some new AM comments referencing what subsequently happened.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm really glad I got him to do his pieces for PB.another_richard said:Look forward to it.
Your articles really do deserve a wider audience.
They would be a far worthier read than that produced by most of the media 'experts'.
0 -
ICYMI his review of 2015another_richard said:
AM's articles really should be collated and published as a whole with perhaps some new AM comments referencing what subsequently happened.TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm really glad I got him to do his pieces for PB.another_richard said:Look forward to it.
Your articles really do deserve a wider audience.
They would be a far worthier read than that produced by most of the media 'experts'.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/30/alastair-meeks-compares-his-predictions-for-2015-with-what-actually-happened/0 -
Basically, you don't think Bloomberg stands a chance.Speedy said:
According to the last actual poll, Bloomberg gets 8-10% of republicans vs 8-14% of democrats and 10-18% of independents depending on the candidate of each party.Danny565 said:
I dunno though -- although the white working-class make up a growing part of the Republican base, they do at the same time still have some (Toryish) very middle-class voters who are mainly concerned with fiscal conservatism and keeping taxes low. Surely Bloomberg could win some of those away from Trump?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
I think - if its Sanders vs Trump - he might.0 -
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD0
-
Aberdeen received £250 million today from David Cameron in a City deal. It cannot do any harm for Ruth Davidson or the Scots Conservatives in the coming Holyrood election, especially in this area of Scotland0
-
The Democrat candidate was Hispanic - Fernando Ferrer.rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's as simple as that. Bloomberg picks up the Republican business vote, the Jewish vote, and the moderate Hillary hating Democrat vote.Pulpstar said:Bloomberg surely kills the democrats. The voters for Trump are mad as hell
Interestingly, in Blomberg's reelection campaign in new York, he picked up more that 50% of the black vote, despite being a Jewish Republican
There would have been many Black voters who wanted to see Ferrer defeated so that the next Democrat candidate would be Black. As indeed was the case.
0 -
Please David the martyr outfit doesn't become you.DavidL said:
I supported this government in taking away my CB, slightly more reluctantly in taking away my PA and have accepted that I will get less tax relief on my pension contributions than I do now in future. I just don't recognise your description. I have accepted that I can better afford the removal of these benefits than those who live on them.another_richard said:
Take a look at the comments from PBers in favour of reducing pension tax allowances on the 'rich'.Philip_Thompson said:
Only the top 15% of earners pay the 40% higher rate of tax. While only 2% of earners pay the 45% rate (ex-50% rate).another_richard said:
The trick is to get the number of voters you are bribing more than the number of voters you are taxing and more than the number of voters your opponents are trying to bribe.Philip_Thompson said:
Not always. If it did then the "tax them til they bleed" brigade would win landslides every time.another_richard said:
How many hundreds of billions more has Osborne borrowed / is borrowing than he said he would ?DavidL said:SimonStClare said:
.DavidL said:
Ironically Osborne's extra borrow and bribe is the main reason the government was reelected.
Competency has little to do with things - people vote for governments which take money from THEM and give it to ME.
A government which takes money from Peter and gives it to Paul will always receive the support of Paul.
Extra borrowing is highly useful for this as present Paul has a vote and future Peter doesn't.
As does having an incompetent opponent who tries to bribe a low voting group (the young) while you are bribing a high voting group (the old).
You'd think that if it was based on bribes alone then the parties proposing jacking up these rates would win dramatically. But the country isn't that petty and misguided. .
The 'take it from THEM and give it to ME' mentality runs strongly through them.
Who do you think you would be financially better off under - a Conservative government or a Labour government ?
0 -
Have had a quick look and by my calculation:another_richard said:
My point is you were saying that UKIP being a political party rather than an EU pressure group damaged the chances of the likelihood of an EU referendum.Richard_Nabavi said:
It doesn't. Your point is what, exactly?another_richard said:
Answer the question.Richard_Nabavi said:
How many of those were there?another_richard said:How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour help put Labour into government ?
How does UKIP gaining seats from Labour - and taking votes from Labour generally - help put Labour in government ?
In reality UKIP standing as a political party had the following possible effects:
UKIP gain seats from Con - no effect on the likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain seats from Lab / LD - increases likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain more votes from Con than Lab / LD - decreases likelihood of an EU referendum
UKIP gain more votes from Lab / LD than Con - increases likelihood of an EU referendum
So the issue then resolves as to how much effect UKIP had at the election.
Now I've not made a study but my estimate is the Conservatives did better than expected and gained/held seats in areas where UKIP did well and worse than expected and lost seats in areas where UKIP did poorly.
If that is the case (and I repeat I've not made a study of it) then UKIP standing as a political party helped reelect a Conservative government and so increased the likelihood of an EU referendum.
8 Conservative gains from Labour
UKIP average vote 15.4%
UKIP average vote increase 11.7%
10 Labour gains from Conservative
UKIP average vote 8.1%
UKIP average vote increase 6.0%
Looks like UKIP hurt Labour more where it mattered.
0 -
nt0
This discussion has been closed.