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

Aren't we supposed to be seeing Iowa exit polls around now? If you Google them you get one hit, but it's a Youtube video uploaded 8 hours ago and (falsely, as nobody had voted at that stage) claiming a huge Trump lead.

Chris_A said:

notme said:

Chris_A said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

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

They'd consider it, and then decide to stay.

yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..

Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.

Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.

Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.

If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.

I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?

Yes there will be another strike next week. And I post here regularly and not just about the government running down the health service.

How is it running it down? By protecting spending on the NHS it has caused quite substantial reductions to other areas of public spending.

NHS spending is not being protected it is falling year on year as percentage of GDP. We are dropping rapidly to the relegation zone of the OECD again. Make no mistake about it NHS funding is being run down http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

The reason other departments are being reduced is because of the immense amount paid out on housing benefits because the government has allowed marked forces to run wild.

So because GDP is growing we should just chuck money at something that is need related? What a joke.

notme said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

Chris_A said:

Mortimer said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

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

They'd consider it, and then decide to stay.

yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..

Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.

Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.

Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.

Why would that be?

Because it is all about money after all?

Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.

You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.

New contracts should include a clause surcharging any doctors who wish to hotfoot it overseas for more loot, within say 10 years of qualifying at the taxpayers expense. Seems fair.

This taxpayers expense stuff is all nonsense. Doctors are no more trained at "taxpayers' expense" than an engineer or a lawyer. All university education is subsidised in this country.

The path to becoming a doctor is much longer and much more expensive. A media studies undergrad could have as little as six to eight hours of contact time a week, a medical student will be at least twenty, and much of it lab based, and its five years instead of three.

It is expensive to do. It is claimed that over the ten years it takes, five to get through med school and then the five to get to the point of becoming a GP, it costs the taxpayer about £610,000.

I'm not doubting it. But again every engineer working in this country has had his or her degree subsidised by the tax payer. And doctors once they've graduated pay from their own money to do their further exams. Do we want engineers, do we want doctors?

And the £610k is likely to be a myth.

10,000 Berlin hotel rooms to be hired out for migrants according to this report:

http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article151274435/Berlin-will-Tausende-Hotelzimmer-fuer-Fluechtlinge-mieten.html

viewcode said:

MTimT said:

You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.

Nahh, they'd go via the Fleet[1]

[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.

Astonishing!
The then River Fleet was regularly blocked up with rubbish and even though after the Great Fire they tried at great expense to turn it all into a little venice the dastardly locals kept throwing their rubbish in it and the traders would not use the quaysides.

Chris_A said:

notme said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

Chris_A said:

Mortimer said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

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

They'd consider it, and then decide to stay.

yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..

Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.

Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.

Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.

Why would that be?

Because it is all about money after all?

Because doctors are quite employable and none of them will want to work for an idiot who thinks that their level of intelligence/expertise is on a par with doing a quick Google search.

You just carry on convincing yourself with the fantasy it's all about the money.

New contracts should include a clause surcharging any doctors who wish to hotfoot it overseas for more loot, within say 10 years of qualifying at the taxpayers expense. Seems fair.

This taxpayers expense stuff is all nonsense. Doctors are no more trained at "taxpayers' expense" than an engineer or a lawyer. All university education is subsidised in this country.

The path to becoming a doctor is much longer and much more expensive. A media studies undergrad could have as little as six to eight hours of contact time a week, a medical student will be at least twenty, and much of it lab based, and its five years instead of three.

It is expensive to do. It is claimed that over the ten years it takes, five to get through med school and then the five to get to the point of becoming a GP, it costs the taxpayer about £610,000.

I'm not doubting it. But again every engineer working in this country has had his or her degree subsidised by the tax payer. And doctors once they've graduated pay from their own money to do their further exams. Do we want engineers, do we want doctors?

And the £610k is likely to be a myth.

This is just laughable.

Doctors obviously cost more to train.
Oh, and Engineers are (mostly) employed by the private sector. So they help to pay for Doctors too.

RobD said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

glw said:

viewcode said:

A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..

Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.

God, Corbyn is thick.

Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.

They're almost childlike in their stupidity, really. I mean on one level it's kind of sweet, but it's just not adult. Next week: flying submarines. Airborne aircraft carriers. AT-ATs. Stuff that looks good in crayon, but is just flat-out dumb IRL

Actually, please please please can the next Labour defence brainfart involve AT-ATs? I mean it's just as wildly impracticable, but it'd look wicked cool. For about thirty seconds, at least

Corbyn to replace House of Lords with Galactic Senate? Those floating podium things are kinda cool!

I don't see Corbyn as Palpatine. What we need is a character that was originally intended to be serious but in the event was a ridiculous embarrassment

viewcode said:

RobD said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

glw said:

viewcode said:

A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..

Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.

God, Corbyn is thick.

Even I don't think that's what they are proposing. I took it to mean they want to build ballistic missile subs and then use them to carry dry dock shelters. So about £4 billion or so to drop off a dozen hard nuts off the coast of Somalia.

They're almost childlike in their stupidity, really. I mean on one level it's kind of sweet, but it's just not adult. Next week: flying submarines. Airborne aircraft carriers. AT-ATs. Stuff that looks good in crayon, but is just flat-out dumb IRL

Actually, please please please can the next Labour defence brainfart involve AT-ATs? I mean it's just as wildly impracticable, but it'd look wicked cool. For about thirty seconds, at least

Corbyn to replace House of Lords with Galactic Senate? Those floating podium things are kinda cool!

I don't see Corbyn as Palpatine. What we need is a character that was originally intended to be serious but in the event was a ridiculous embarrassment

You mean Darth Binks?

flightpath01 said:

viewcode said:

MTimT said:

You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.

Nahh, they'd go via the Fleet[1]

[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.

Astonishing!
The then River Fleet was regularly blocked up with rubbish and even though after the Great Fire they tried at great expense to turn it all into a little venice the dastardly locals kept throwing their rubbish in it and the traders would not use the quaysides.

Thank you.

David_Evershed said:

Chris_A said:

notme said:

Chris_A said:

ThreeQuidder said:

Chris_A said:

watford30 said:

SquareRoot said:

Casino_Royale said:

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

They'd consider it, and then decide to stay.

yeah.. like the junior doctors... The strike just hurts patients..

Hush now. Think of those poor Tarquins and Jemimas and their struggle for overtime all day on a Saturday, not just after 5pm ... errr, sorry, I meant the fight for patient safety.

Good to see it confirmed that it's all about the money, but we knew that already.

Carry on thinking it's about pay and demeaning doctors (you're not Jeremy Hunt, are you?). By the time it gets to 2020 there won't be enough doctors to safely cover even emergency rotas.

If doctors are going to put patients at risk by striking for money, they deserve every last bit of opprobrium that they get.

I presume the fact you're back on here talking about this means there's going to be another strike?

Yes there will be another strike next week. And I post here regularly and not just about the government running down the health service.

How is it running it down? By protecting spending on the NHS it has caused quite substantial reductions to other areas of public spending.

NHS spending is not being protected it is falling year on year as percentage of GDP. We are dropping rapidly to the relegation zone of the OECD again. Make no mistake about it NHS funding is being run down http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

The reason other departments are being reduced is because of the immense amount paid out on housing benefits because the government has allowed marked forces to run wild.

It is very sad, and wrong, that the NHS performance is being measured by how much it spends rather than the health of the nation.

Hear, hear.

It will continue to be the same whilst the interests of the producers remain paramount.

Worth taking the BMA down a peg or two.

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

Barnesian said:

Pong said:

NickPalmer said:

Aren't we supposed to be seeing Iowa exit polls around now? If you Google them you get one hit, but it's a Youtube video uploaded 8 hours ago and (falsely, as nobody had voted at that stage) claiming a huge Trump lead.

lol

I thought they didn't start actually caucusing(?) until 7pm (1am)

Dunno though.

It says here that the results of the Iowa Democratic caucuses will be released beginning at 7:30pm CT, which I think is in 15 minutes time.

https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state

EDIT - Correction - I think that is in 75 minutes time.

Thanks

Is there anything similiar for the GOP ?

Similar?

Pretty much identical!

https://www.iagopcaucuses.com/#/state

viewcode said:

flightpath01 said:

viewcode said:

MTimT said:

You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.

Nahh, they'd go via the Fleet[1]

[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.

Astonishing!
The then River Fleet was regularly blocked up with rubbish and even though after the Great Fire they tried at great expense to turn it all into a little venice the dastardly locals kept throwing their rubbish in it and the traders would not use the quaysides.

Thank you.

Thats all right.
I'm not trying to be funny or anything BTW, that period of rebuilding is a very interesting one. Including St Pauls Cathedral there are only about a dozen buildings which have survived the rebuilding after the Great Fire. A number burnt down relatively soon after! Its a pity really that more do not survive from that period.

Iowa > Pocahontas County

Found it !

It looks really like turnout will be at a record high looking at CNN.
It's so high that the caucus probably will be delayed a bit.

For the next minute it looks good for Trump and Sanders.

CNN provides no information with their entrance poll.
Literally nothing, not even percentages.

The only numbers provided by CNN is about first voters, both have 40% new voters, very sclerotic on the Democratic side only 13% made a decision in the last days.

flightpath01 said:

viewcode said:

flightpath01 said:

viewcode said:

MTimT said:

You'd never get them to move in the river - they'd be stuck in the mud. Displacement of Vanguard submarine - 12 metres. Charted depth of the Thames at London Bridge - 1.8 metres.

Nahh, they'd go via the Fleet[1]

[1] This is possibly the best pun I have ever made on PB. The Fleet is an old tributary of the Thames which has been built over - hence "Fleet Street" - and so is now underground. So you've got an underwater boat in an underground river. Additionally, "fleet" is a collective noun for marine vessels.

Astonishing!
The then River Fleet was regularly blocked up with rubbish and even though after the Great Fire they tried at great expense to turn it all into a little venice the dastardly locals kept throwing their rubbish in it and the traders would not use the quaysides.

Thank you.

Thats all right.
I'm not trying to be funny or anything BTW, that period of rebuilding is a very interesting one. Including St Pauls Cathedral there are only about a dozen buildings which have survived the rebuilding after the Great Fire. A number burnt down relatively soon after! Its a pity really that more do not survive from that period.

The only architect I'm familiar with from the period (other than Wren!) is Hawksmoor, I'm sorry to say

CNN reports that 43% of Republican caucusgoers today are first-timers, with 57% having attended a caucus before.
Thirty-four percent decided on their candidate in the last few days.
On the Democratic side, 41% had never been to a caucus before. In 2008 when Barack Obama made history, 57% of the caucusgoers were first-timers.
On the Democratic side, 13% decided in the last few days.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/01/politics/iowa-caucuses-updates-real-time/index.html?iowa

I just saw evangelical 26% Cruz, 25% Trump, 18 Rubio

Trump 33% amongst first timers

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

CBS News Politics ‏@CBSPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
Early entrance polls at #IAcaucus: @RealDonaldTrump leading GOP; @HillaryClinton leading Dems: http://cbsn.ws/1PbBBi2

Trump 33% Cruz 18% first time caucus goers
http://www.cbsnews.com/live/

49% others?

Is the cost of Jeb's campaign going to be in the millions of dollars per vote?

They haven't showed any numbers for the democrats, they only say that Hillary is leading but by how much? 1%, 2%, 3% ?
On the republican side its clear that Trump is in the lead, with Rubio a poor third.

No Iowa thread?

Evening all.

We got data:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Rep

Bottom page, the entrance poll.

Trump 29
Cruz 22
Rubio 19
Fiorina 4
Huckabee 3.5
Bush 3
Christie 3
Paul 3
Kasich 1.5
Santorum 1.5

Pulpstar said:

Pong said:

HYUFD said:

Speedy said:

CBS News Politics ‏@CBSPolitics 3m3 minutes ago
Early entrance polls at #IAcaucus: @RealDonaldTrump leading GOP; @HillaryClinton leading Dems: http://cbsn.ws/1PbBBi2

Trump 33% Cruz 18% first time caucus goers
http://www.cbsnews.com/live/

49% others?

Well there are alot of horses, don't forget Ben Carson is still in the race !

And Jeb.

Don't forget Jeb.

Speedy said:

We got data:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Rep

Bottom page, the entrance poll.

Trump 29
Cruz 22
Rubio 19
Fiorina 4
Huckabee 3.5
Bush 3
Christie 3
Paul 3
Kasich 1.5
Santorum 1.5

Go Carly!

Interesting how the British media are using the same types of photos of Trump as they usually use for Farage: ie. ones making the person in question look like a braying horse. How original.

AndyJS said:

Interesting how the British media are using the same types of photos of Trump as they usually use for Farage: ie. ones making the person in question look like a braying horse. How original.

Clickbait most likely.

Speedy said:

We got data:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Rep

Bottom page, the entrance poll.

Trump 29
Cruz 22
Rubio 19
Fiorina 4
Huckabee 3.5
Bush 3
Christie 3
Paul 3
Kasich 1.5
Santorum 1.5

Dems

Clinton 49%
Sanders 43.5%
O'Malley 4%
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ia/Dem

Speedy said:

RobD said:

So are the entrance polls typically any good?

Depends, in 2012 they had an error of around 2-3%.

So it's possible they may be burned?



I'll get my coat...

RobD said:

Speedy said:

RobD said:

So are the entrance polls typically any good?

Depends, in 2012 they had an error of around 2-3%.

So it's possible they may be burned?



I'll get my coat...

Well one has Hillary with a lead of 6-7.
Trump 2 polls with a lead of 4-7.

What time are we expecting the first Iowa results?

M.Partridge said:

What time are we expecting the first Iowa results?

Hopefully in an hour, perhaps 2 if we are unlucky.

stjohn said:

High turn out suggests to me a convincing win for Trump. But I'm not an odds on shot backer so I'm not putting the cash down. Trump 1.31-1.38 on Betfair.

I'm not a short odds backer either, but from the data we have, those odds should be;

1/4
10/1
10/1

Who has the best live text feed?

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

M.Partridge said:

What time are we expecting the first Iowa results?

Do you mean final results or partial results? Partial results are starting to come through now.

Where?

https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Dem

Pong said:

stjohn said:

High turn out suggests to me a convincing win for Trump. But I'm not an odds on shot backer so I'm not putting the cash down. Trump 1.31-1.38 on Betfair.

I'm not a short odds backer either, but from the data we have, those odds should be;

1/4
10/1
10/1

I'm just not sure how credible those entrance polls are.

I'm on quite a steep learning curve re; US elections!

Now CNN has Hillary 50, Sanders 44, O'Malley 3.
Those entrance polls are changing all the time.

Results are starting to trickle on the CNN page.
1% in.

Cruz 34
Trump 33
Rubio 12
Carson 10

Trump ahead in Guthrie.

CBSN utterly gushing over Rubio

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

M.Partridge said:

What time are we expecting the first Iowa results?

Do you mean final results or partial results? Partial results are starting to come through now.

Where?

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Dem

But is at 0%, no results in yet.

It did have a few delegates but not enough to rise above 0%.

First 4% of results in Dems caucuses

Clinton 52%
Sanders 46%

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/ia/Dem

Bush has picked up 3 votes so far, all of them in Poweshiek County.

viewcode said:

RobD said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

viewcode said:

RobD said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

glw said:

viewcode said:

A Trident ballistic missile is about 2 metres wide by 13m long. If you stripped out all the gubbins and packed fully-laden soldiers in like sardines you'd get about 25 in each launch tube. A Vanguard has 16 SLBM launch tubes, so that's 400 soldiers, all packed into tubes, weeing on the guy at the bottom of the tube, holding their breath, and trying not to fart..

Or conversely you could just charter a 747 and transport 400 soldiers in some comfort, with a warm meal and an inflight movie.

God, Corbyn is thick.

Corbyn to replace House of Lords with Galactic Senate? Those floating podium things are kinda cool!

I don't see Corbyn as Palpatine. What we need is a character that was originally intended to be serious but in the event was a ridiculous embarrassment

You mean Darth Binks?

So Corbyn is actually a Sith Lord who's only pretending to be a childish embarrassment. Meesa is impressed..

He's actually a Tory sleeper agent, doing his best to ensure a thousand year PB Tory reich

We shall watch his career with great interest...

Palpatine: Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Corbyn the Wise?

Anakin: No.

Palpatine: I thought not. It's not a story the Labour Party would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Corbyn was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create... Left-wing Policies. He had such a knowledge of the Dark Side, he could even keep the ones he cared about... from dying from boredom at Party meetings.

Anakin: He could actually...save people from boring themselves to death?

Palpatine: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many policy platforms some consider to be unelectable.

Anakin: What happened to him?

Palpatine: He became so powerful, the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power... which, eventually of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his Shadow Chancellor everything he knew. Then his Shadow Chancellor stole his best policies. Ironic. He could save others from obscurity... but not himself.

Anakin: Is it possible to learn this power?

Palpatine: Not from a Socialist...

Bush is looking in serious trouble.

I quite like the Caucus system actually - politics in the raw.