politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Introducing the Politicalbetting EU Polling Averages – spli

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Well, (at least) one methodology is out of true by a very long way at the moment.

But we know that internet pollsters cannot get an even vaguely representative sample. We all know that. Seriously, why do they bother asking their fanatics any more?

I already made my own.
Phone polls since the GE have a swing of 2 points to leave.
Online polls have a swing of 6 points to leave.
Both movements have been gradual over 7 months.

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Didn't they do okay with the Scottish referendum?

Not that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Edit. I have read that if you added the undecided to no they got close but that is not what they were saying. Every last poll had it much closer than it turned out.

To track caucuses online, for Dems it's
www.idpcaucuses.com

For Republicans it's
www.iagopcaucuses.com

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Didn't they do okay with the Scottish referendum?

Not that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Edit. I have read that if you added the undecided to no they got close but that is not what they were saying. Every last poll had it much closer than it turned out.

If you add undecided to no then they are all basically 45/55 which is spot on.

Moses_ said:

The New York Times

28m28 minutes ago
The New York Times ‏@nytimes
Breaking News: The Zika virus is a global emergency, the W.H.O. said, citing possible links to infant brain damage
http://nyti.ms/1WXNE7L

The New York Times retweeted
Denise Grady
4h4 hours ago
Denise Grady ‏@nytDeniseGrady
Babies with small heads, linked to Zika virus: overwhelmed doctors in Brazil have never seen anything

Worth remembering the EU has quite a long border with Brazil

NorfolkTilIDie said:

I hope the phone polls are wrong. If we vote to stay in, it will be in Britain's interest for it to be a narrow margin so we can push for more changes in future.

Lets hope Dave doesn't try to rush the referendum. The Scottish Indie Referendum was not rushed:

Our report on the
Scottish Independence Referendum also highlighted the benefits for voters, campaigners and electoral administrators of early confirmation of the legislative framework for the referendum, which was clear almost 10 months before the referendum date.

We continue to recommend that best practice for future referendums is that all legislation should be clear (whether by Royal Assent to a Bill or the introduction of regulations to Parliament for approval) at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners, the Chief Counting Officer, Counting Officers or Electoral Registration Officers.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190160/EU-Referendum-Bill-HoC-Second-Reading-Briefing-2015-06-02.pdf

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Well, (at least) one methodology is out of true by a very long way at the moment.

But we know that internet pollsters cannot get an even vaguely representative sample. We all know that. Seriously, why do they bother asking their fanatics any more?

I take your point, but I also find the phone pollsters' numbers to be implausible. Is the baseline position, pre-campaign, that Remain has such a lead amongst those likely to vote? If it's true it must mean that Conservative voters are far less Eurosceptic, on average, than I would have thought. I struggle to believe that. It's one thing to say that large numbers of them could be won over to Remain by Cameron - that I can believe - but that their at-rest holding position is Remain ... really?

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Didn't they do okay with the Scottish referendum?

Not that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Edit. I have read that if you added the undecided to no they got close but that is not what they were saying. Every last poll had it much closer than it turned out.

If you add undecided to no then they are all basically 45/55 which is spot on.

As I said Alistair that is not what they were saying. Caused a huge amount of unnecessary stress.

Caused a vastly unnecessary loss to my bank balance. Too long spent looking at the 'headline' figure rather than the actual result.

Excluding DKs I think makes sense for general election Polling but I think you have to be more aggressive in assigning DKs in a two option referendum, especially one of such importance.

As an aside, for the next 12 hours, can we make the site an EUref free zone. I'm concentrating on my US presidential betting positions and don't care about Europe right now.

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Didn't they do okay with the Scottish referendum?

Not that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Edit. I have read that if you added the undecided to no they got close but that is not what they were saying. Every last poll had it much closer than it turned out.

But that was equally true of online and phone polls. In fact, it was ICM which gave 'Yes' a 7-point lead with a week to go.

The question now is why is there such a disparity on the European polling?

The only major difference is how old people respond, in the online polls they choose by a 2-1 margin to Leave, in the phone polls they are level.
Although Ipsos/Mori doesn't use the question on the ballot but just an IN/OUT question.

richardDodd said:

NTID..If we vote to stay in then we will have little or even no say in any future changes..we will have accepted the entire concept of the EU..Further integration on all EU fronts..we will have shot our bolt and become the EU Bitch

I suspect we'll vote to stay in now, and then vote to leave in about three years time.

Ultimately, if leaving the EU secures the support of 50% of the population for any sustained period of time, we leave.

rcs1000 said:

richardDodd said:

NTID..If we vote to stay in then we will have little or even no say in any future changes..we will have accepted the entire concept of the EU..Further integration on all EU fronts..we will have shot our bolt and become the EU Bitch

I suspect we'll vote to stay in now, and then vote to leave in about three years time.

Ultimately, if leaving the EU secures the support of 50% of the population for any sustained period of time, we leave.

What would happen in the next 3 years to trigger another referendum, in your view?

(Other than President Trump threatening to bomb us if we don't leave, of course )

Speedy said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

AndyJS said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Didn't they do okay with the Scottish referendum?

Not that great: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014

Edit. I have read that if you added the undecided to no they got close but that is not what they were saying. Every last poll had it much closer than it turned out.

But that was equally true of online and phone polls. In fact, it was ICM which gave 'Yes' a 7-point lead with a week to go.

The question now is why is there such a disparity on the European polling?

The only major difference is how old people respond, in the online polls they choose by a 2-1 margin to Leave, in the phone polls they are level.
Although Ipsos/Mori doesn't use the question on the ballot but just an IN/OUT question.

Wait, they aren't using the ballot question? That's nuts.

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Trump leads Cruz 40 - 22 percent among first-timers, while Republicans who attended prior caucuses go 26 percent for Cruz and 25 percent for Trump;
Sanders tops Clinton 62 - 35 percent among Democratic first-timers, while Clinton leads 52 - 41 percent among voters who attended prior caucuses;
44 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats say this is their first caucus.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2320

Where's the marcomentum now xD ?

It does seem that if anyone is going to produce a shock tonight it will be Bernie, not Marco but we shall see

glw said:

rcs1000 said:

Worth remembering the EU has quite a long border with Brazil

I was wondering about that a few days ago. Why isn't their more asylum or migration via Guiana? Spain has a lot of trouble with Ceuta and Melilla, but I've not heard of anything similar happening with Guiana.

Because, 1) poor though parts of South America are, it's not nearly so awful as Africa and the Middle East, and 2) once they get to French Guiana, what then? Even once you're technically inside the borders of an EU country, it's far from straightforward to get to mainland Europe - much more so than getting from Ceuta to mainland Spain.

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

richardDodd said:

NTID..If we vote to stay in then we will have little or even no say in any future changes..we will have accepted the entire concept of the EU..Further integration on all EU fronts..we will have shot our bolt and become the EU Bitch

I suspect we'll vote to stay in now, and then vote to leave in about three years time.

Ultimately, if leaving the EU secures the support of 50% of the population for any sustained period of time, we leave.

What would happen in the next 3 years to trigger another referendum, in your view?

(Other than President Trump threatening to bomb us if we don't leave, of course )

President Trump won't make threats. He will act.

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Well, (at least) one methodology is out of true by a very long way at the moment.

But we know that internet pollsters cannot get an even vaguely representative sample. We all know that. Seriously, why do they bother asking their fanatics any more?

We also know there are very good reasons to doubt the sample being questioned by the phone polls. Both types of polling have fundamental problems with their methodologies. Indeed I would suggest the phone poll problems might be even more acute than the online polls.

They're all mince Richard and will be until they start getting things right again.

stodge said:

Evening all

Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.

Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.

As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.

If Trump wins IA and NH his momentum will be almost unstoppable in my view and if Cruz is second in both Rubio is done. If Sanders wins both Iowa and NH meanwhile Hillary will be clinging onto the nomination by her fingernails and faces a battle royal to see him off, if Sanders wins the MidWest as well as the NorthEast and adds the West even sweeping the South could not save her. If the lead changes several times tonight though Hillary could get away with a fractional loss as Romney did in 2012

stodge said:

Evening all

Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.

Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.

As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.

Unless Patterson or Fox leads the Tories I think that would be unlikely, certainly there will be no EU Ref 2 if Osborne is PM

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

FPT

Chuka Ummuna on C4 news debating Europe. He is no genius but he was so far ahead of the normal Labour drone as defies belief. He agrees with Cameron on racism in University selection; he agreed with part of Maggie's Bruges speech but he fought his corner for membership of the EU.

Whether you agree with him or not is really the point. This man is articulate, intelligent and Labour. It makes him almost unique. If he is not their next leader Labour are persisting in not being serious.

If Osborne scrapes home against Corbyn or Benn in 2020 Umunna would be ideally placed to beat him in 2025

Ummuna will be as successful as Jeb Bush:

https://news.vice.com/article/mystery-entity-offers-to-pay-people-to-attend-jeb-bush-rally-in-iowa

But Ummuna comes off more slimy than Jeb.
He will never get my vote, not even if he expels Hilary Benn from Labour (although Blair might get it if he does).

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, for the next 12 hours, can we make the site an EUref free zone. I'm concentrating on my US presidential betting positions and don't care about Europe right now.

Do we get to hear Robert's prognostications, preferably sooner rather than later if possible, whilst there 's still money to be made on the betting markets?

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

DavidL said:

FPT

Chuka Ummuna on C4 news debating Europe. He is no genius but he was so far ahead of the normal Labour drone as defies belief. He agrees with Cameron on racism in University selection; he agreed with part of Maggie's Bruges speech but he fought his corner for membership of the EU.

Whether you agree with him or not is really the point. This man is articulate, intelligent and Labour. It makes him almost unique. If he is not their next leader Labour are persisting in not being serious.

If Osborne scrapes home against Corbyn or Benn in 2020 Umunna would be ideally placed to beat him in 2025

Ummuna will be as successful as Jeb Bush:

https://news.vice.com/article/mystery-entity-offers-to-pay-people-to-attend-jeb-bush-rally-in-iowa

But Ummuna comes off more slimy than Jeb.
He will never get my vote, not even if he expels Hilary Benn from Labour (although Blair might get it if he does).

Yes, well good for you but Umunna is more Obama than Jeb Bush in my view and he would not be taking over until after a third defeat, the GOP are only on their second!

notme said:

Mortimer said:

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

The reaction of the right on brigade would be far more hateful.

Sanders, for all his economic plans, is not a risk to national security in the way Corbyn and McMao are.

America has a separation of powers which stops lunatics from doing too much damage...

Not noticeably.

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

The reaction of the right on brigade would be far more hateful.

Sanders, for all his economic plans, is not a risk to national security in the way Corbyn and McMao are.

Well, be that as you think it is.

Trump's problem is that, like most businessmen going into politics, he thinks the way he runs his business through diktat, command and control can be used to run the Presidency but of course it can't.

Trump as POTUS would need to persuade, argue and convince and he's frankly not very good at any of those which means he'll get frustrated. A Trump Presidency would be four wasted years which the US cannot afford. If the Republicans weren't obsessed by their visceral hatred for Hillary (Bill beat them twice and the GOP hate to be reminded of that just as Conservatives hate to be reminded how effective an opponent Blair was), they might not consider her a bad alternative to the bunch of nitwits vying for their nomination.

A few of the Republican establishment, including the Bushes, may well vote for Hillary over Trump

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

DavidL said:

On topic, can anyone really take internet polls seriously anymore? Why?

Well, (at least) one methodology is out of true by a very long way at the moment.

But we know that internet pollsters cannot get an even vaguely representative sample. We all know that. Seriously, why do they bother asking their fanatics any more?

We also know there are very good reasons to doubt the sample being questioned by the phone polls. Both types of polling have fundamental problems with their methodologies. Indeed I would suggest the phone poll problems might be even more acute than the online polls.

They're all mince Richard and will be until they start getting things right again.

I suppose the question has to be how do they get things right. The separate problems with each type of polling seem pretty insurmountable to me.

How do you stop the self selection aspects of online polling?
How do you get people to answer the phone when they don't recognise the number in an age where everyone is plagued by nuisance calls?

Richard_Tyndall said:

It doesn't matter what Tusk presents. Nothing short of treaty would give anything near the protection we would require from it being struck down by the ECJ and even then it is possible for any agreement to be circumvented. Added to that is the basic problem that Cameron simply hasn't asked for any significant changes.

Basically we are voting on the EU as it is now including the moves towards closer union.

Unfortunately you can almost see the spinning starting and the claims this will be a "victory" for Cameron and much of the pro-Conservative media will slavishly follow and it will be akin to the Emperor's New Clothes as Cameron reports back to the Commons.

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

Tim_B said:

Regarding the smart phone app which tells DEMs at caucus whether to make O'Malley viable or not at the expense of Sanders, here's an article from Time describing it. Hopefully they do a better job than I did. It makes perfect sense, honest!

http://time.com/4201806/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-iowa/

Can't recall if I posted this earlier.

"The strategy works by allowing the poorer-performing candidate, in this case O’Malley, to meet the viability threshold—the level of support at which he can be awarded a single delegate. In most caucus locations that’s 15% of attendees, but rises to 25% in precincts that award just two delegates. Unlike the Republican caucuses who use a secret ballot, Democrats vote with their feet, physically moving to different corners of the room. If a candidate’s support is below the viability threshold, the caucus chair will inform his or her supporters that they have to choose between the remaining candidates. That is, unless supporters from one of the other groups moves over to bolster their numbers."

Gives precious votes to another candidate in a close 2 way race, its suicide.
If Sanders wins the vote but loses the delegates, it's still a big win for Sanders and a big defeat for Hillary, the media will report who won the vote not who got delegates.

rcs1000 said:

Moses_ said:

The New York Times

28m28 minutes ago
The New York Times ‏@nytimes
Breaking News: The Zika virus is a global emergency, the W.H.O. said, citing possible links to infant brain damage
http://nyti.ms/1WXNE7L

The New York Times retweeted
Denise Grady
4h4 hours ago
Denise Grady ‏@nytDeniseGrady
Babies with small heads, linked to Zika virus: overwhelmed doctors in Brazil have never seen anything

Worth remembering the EU has quite a long border with Brazil

One thing I did notice the other day on the rough map showing how it had spread was Trinidad and Tobago and also what appeared to be Costa Rica were not marked in red. Either side of this countries there were cases and in Trinidad's case up through the islands to the north. Odd?

Perhaps they ran out of colouring pencil?

Pong said:

Speedy said:

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.

Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.

Sanders tax plans are closer to Corbyn's than Cameron's and he voted against the Iraq War unlike Cameron

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

'the basic problem that Cameron simply hasn't asked for any significant changes.

Basically we are voting on the EU as it is now including the moves towards closer union.'

100% correct. But so many people still want to play along with this silly 'renegotiation game'

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

flightpath01 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

Evening all

Interesting notion that if REMAIN wins narrowly (how defined ?), it'll be EU Ref 2 in 2020. I suppose it's possible IF the Conservatives pick someone very closely associated with LEAVE, there might be a manifesto commitment for a second referendum within 12 months of the re-election of a Conservative Government.

Sorry...Robert doesn't want us talking about all this.

As for matters American, it's entryism run riot on both sides tonight. Trump and Sanders could be carried to victory by caucus first-timers but the underlying numbers suggest neither would have a lock on the nomination at this time. Cromwell's "pragmatic" voters might yet deny Trump but if he wins IA and NH convincingly, he'll be that harder to stop.

Unless Patterson or Fox leads the Tories I think that would be unlikely, certainly there will be no EU Ref 2 if Osborne is PM

The law says new treaties must pass a referendum.

That's not an in/out referendum though, is it?

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

Speedy said:

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.

Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.

It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.

You would have to have a red nose and big floppy shoes to want Trump. I doubt anyone in a turban of any colour would be too keen either.

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

You can register on the door of the caucus location.
But if you are a republican, to know where that location is you have to be already registered.

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

If you are 17 you can caucus so long as you'll be 18 on election day. You can register Republican (or Democrat) at the appropriate caucus.

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Regarding the smart phone app which tells DEMs at caucus whether to make O'Malley viable or not at the expense of Sanders, here's an article from Time describing it. Hopefully they do a better job than I did. It makes perfect sense, honest!

http://time.com/4201806/hillary-clinton-martin-omalley-bernie-sanders-iowa/

Can't recall if I posted this earlier.

"The strategy works by allowing the poorer-performing candidate, in this case O’Malley, to meet the viability threshold—the level of support at which he can be awarded a single delegate. In most caucus locations that’s 15% of attendees, but rises to 25% in precincts that award just two delegates. Unlike the Republican caucuses who use a secret ballot, Democrats vote with their feet, physically moving to different corners of the room. If a candidate’s support is below the viability threshold, the caucus chair will inform his or her supporters that they have to choose between the remaining candidates. That is, unless supporters from one of the other groups moves over to bolster their numbers."

Gives precious votes to another candidate in a close 2 way race, its suicide.
If Sanders wins the vote but loses the delegates, it's still a big win for Sanders and a big defeat for Hillary, the media will report who won the vote not who got delegates.

The precinct captains will only release supporters to make O'Malley viable if they can do it WITHOUT hurting Clinton. Not suicide at all. It's hardly an unusual tactic - just more sophisticated now. It's one reason caucuses are so arcane

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/hillary-bernie-math#.ixDo27aj5

That's why they won't do it, because it is suicide for Hillary if they do.

AndyJS said:

"The Mayor of a small German town has caused outrage, telling concerned residence their children must stay away certain areas and “not provoke” migrants to avoid sexual harassment, as well as suggesting they need not worry because German men are a “problem” too."

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/01/german-mayor-young-girls-should-avoid-migrant-areas-of-town-but-german-men-just-as-bad/

Is there to be an Inquiry into the suppression by the German press of these earlier mass assaults?

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

You can register on the door of the caucus location.
But if you are a republican, to know where that location is you have to be already registered.

Call me cynical but even Trump won't be getting many voters who sat out the 2012 presidential election but will go to a local hall on a cold January night to spend an hour debating politics!

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

You can register on the door of the caucus location.
But if you are a republican, to know where that location is you have to be already registered.

Call me cynical but even Trump won't be getting many voters who sat out the 2012 presidential election but will go to a local hall on a cold January night to spend an hour debating politics!

What about the thousands who lined up outside for hours in the cold to hear Trump speak? Will they turn up do you think?

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

If you are 17 you can caucus so long as you'll be 18 on election day. You can register Republican (or Democrat) at the appropriate caucus.

Most of those younger voters would be for Sanders I would imagine

- or Cruz. He has an army of mainly young volunteers. His campaign has rented dorm space for them.

Scott_P said:

@thehill: NEW POLL: 25 percent of federal government employees would quit under President Trump https://t.co/yXGImymNv9 https://t.co/ylbc5oKL4g

I suppose the obvious question is how long before anyone noticed? It would help with the deficit too.

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Tim_B said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Short Trump.

I just found out that it is impossible for new voters to find out where to caucus in the republican side.
I'm trying to find the addresses of the republican caucus locations, but it's impossible to do so if you are not already a registered voter.

Same applies to the democrats but they have included all the addresses for their caucus separately, in case new voters are not registered.

Kudos to ABC for pointing to that problem:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-political-parties-acknowledge-major-gap-online-caucus/story?id=36616607

According to CNN, Trump's website has a link to locate your caucus site for GOP.

Just checked and it does.

I checked it too, it doesn't give results if you are not a registered voter, it's the same app on the democrats page and the RNC page, but the democrats posted a separate list of caucus locations for their own side.

If you are an Iowa republican and not a registered voter, giving your address won't give you the caucus location.

If you are not a registered voter how can you be voting in a presidential caucus anyway?

If you are 17 you can caucus so long as you'll be 18 on election day. You can register Republican (or Democrat) at the appropriate caucus.

Most of those younger voters would be for Sanders I would imagine

- or Cruz. He has an army of mainly young volunteers. His campaign has rented dorm space for them.

They tend to be more campaign workers for him, most of his actual voters will be older

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

Speedy said:

stodge said:

Mortimer said:

I'd almost like to see a Trump presidency - the Corbynista reaction would be hilarious!

In what way ? I suppose the Conservative reaction if Sanders won would be quite interesting as well.

Best case it will be Sanders vs Trump, so that Cameron get's a massive pain in his behinds whichever side wins.

Sanders is only slightly to the left of Cameron.

It's no secret Cameron and the PLP Conservative party's preferred choice is Hilary.

Notwithstanding her very uncomplimentary remarks about Cameron?