politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this US YouGov polling is correct then the chances of a
Comments
-
Would not be surprisedisam said:
about half of the 50 50s?HYUFD said:
Obviously more will turn out than just those certain to vote. Most of the probables and a fair number of the 50 50s will do toochestnut said:
The actual numbers need to be combined, not the percentages, because the groups are of uneven size.HYUFD said:
Certain to vote is only 52 to 48 Leave so it is neck and neck amongst certain and Probables and Remain ahead including 50 50schestnut said:
But they are behind when you combine certain and probable voters. Add the tables up.HYUFD said:
Actually Remain lead 52 to 48 with those who will probably vote and 63 to 37 amongst those who are 50 50. Remain lead only 51 49 amongst those who definitely will not vote. The BBC is as pro EU as the Sun is antichestnut said:
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.HYUFD said:
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knowsSean_F said:WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
There are roughly four times as many certain voters compared to probable voters.
0 -
The BBC was going to throw itself under the bus whatever day it was reported.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite the conspiracy theory.Casino_Royale said:
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.perdix said:
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report.Casino_Royale said:
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.tlg86 said:Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.0 -
I am with you on this albeit a 55% guess.Speedy said:
Nope turnout in my opinion should be between the AV referendum and the GE, that's between 45-65%, 50% is the most likely number.Philip_Thompson said:
65% sounds about right yes. Slightly below the GE and in the middle of AV and Sindy. Do you think it will be significantly lower than that? If so, why?chestnut said:
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.chestnut said:
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.HYUFD said:
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knowsSean_F said:WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
EDIT: Oops misread, you're saying 65% for certain only not overall turnout. My mistake.
The polls are overestimating again the number of people that will vote.
0 -
Yes, pretty much. It's a good attempt of the Leave side to try to give the impression that there's some sort of symmetry of risk, but frankly that is verging on loony.Philip_Thompson said:
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?Richard_Nabavi said:
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."runnymede said:Gerard Lyons, well known City economist comes out for Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/24/gerard-lyons-the-eu-is-like-the-titanic-and-we-need-to-jump-off/
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.0 -
It is a key factor as is immigration a factor for Remain to overcome.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Most of the recent polls seem to have remain in the lead but we all should agree that polls are not the most reliable barometer of opinion. I still maintain it is the security of the status quo that is leave's biggest challengechestnut said:
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.chestnut said:
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.HYUFD said:
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knowsSean_F said:WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
0 -
They'll probably head out, vote for their local Republicans and skip voting in the General would be my guess.HYUFD said:
What is the betting Jeb Bush and Romney vote for Hillary over Trump?rottenborough said:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpTGOHF said:Anything in this ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35662202 51 minutes ago
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned.
Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!
12:34 PM - 25 Feb 20160 -
O/T The ECJ rules that Germany can deny EU foreigners social benefits for first three months...
http://www.dw.com/en/court-eu-foreigners-must-wait-three-months-for-social-benefits-in-germany/a-190726050 -
Well the Savile Report was going to come out at some point anyway so today was as good as any. Statistical releases have to be pre-announced with at least four weeks notice so the BBC would have had plenty of time to pick their moment.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite the conspiracy theory.Casino_Royale said:
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.perdix said:
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report.Casino_Royale said:
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.tlg86 said:Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.0 -
The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
As the election will likely boil down to a choice between the unremittingly sensible Clinton and the irredeemably stupid Trump, it won't really be Democrat versus Republican. It will be Sensible versus Stupid. You have to think that Sensible will prevail in the privacy of the voting booth. Otherwise we really are in uncharted, and indeed rocky, waters.0 -
It is loony to foresee any risks to the EU at all when it has unresolved issues of mass unemployment, mass unskilled migration, no real growth for a decade already and a shrinking share of the global market?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, pretty much. It's a good attempt of the Leave side to try to give the impression that there's some sort of symmetry of risk, but frankly that is verging on loony.Philip_Thompson said:
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?Richard_Nabavi said:
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."runnymede said:Gerard Lyons, well known City economist comes out for Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/24/gerard-lyons-the-eu-is-like-the-titanic-and-we-need-to-jump-off/
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
OK then.0 -
Quinnipiac Florida GOP
Trump 44
Rubio 28
Cruz 12
Kasich 7
Carson 4
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=23270 -
I agree its pretty unlikely, it's not that hard to make a more resilient conspiracy theory you just need to consider the possibility that the BBC was going under the bus anyway and releasing it today rather than tomorrow or yesterday might be treated as a peace offering (for want of a better word) by the powers that be.AlastairMeeks said:
That's quite the conspiracy theory.Casino_Royale said:
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.perdix said:
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report.Casino_Royale said:
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.tlg86 said:Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.0 -
What have any of those got to do with Brexit (other than the risk, indeed near-certainty, that Brexit would make them worse)?Philip_Thompson said:It is loony to foresee any risks to the EU at all when it has unresolved issues of mass unemployment, mass unskilled migration, no real growth for a decade already and a shrinking share of the global market?
OK then.0 -
It's over.HYUFD said:Quinnipiac Florida GOP
Trump 44
Rubio 28
Cruz 12
Kasich 7
Carson 4
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=23270 -
Franklin and Marshall Pennsylvania
GOP
Trump 21
Rubio 18
Cruz 16
Kasich 16
Carson 5
Dems
Clinton 51
Sanders 29
http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/92489569924931096-february-2016-franklin-marshall-college-poll.pdf0 -
Without doubt, polls are showing a higher likelihood to vote for Leave at the moment. Conversely, Remain is doing best among those least likely to vote. That's good news for Leave.chestnut said:
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.chestnut said:
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.HYUFD said:
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knowsSean_F said:WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
But, that also shows that Leave are close to maximising their vote, whereas there's still scope for Remain to grow their vote.0 -
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid:
Less immigration.
Protectionism
Anti-corruption
Fewer wars
More healthcare
Strong defence
Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds:
More immigration
Wall Street
More wars
More of the same
First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/love-war-with-james-carville-and-mary-matalin/
The same applies to Hillary.0 -
Slum it for 3 months. Yeah that'll send them packing back to wherever thy came from....perdix said:O/T The ECJ rules that Germany can deny EU foreigners social benefits for first three months...
http://www.dw.com/en/court-eu-foreigners-must-wait-three-months-for-social-benefits-in-germany/a-190726050 -
Good poll for Rubio in VA
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/monmouth-university-23870
T41 R27 C140 -
I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.0 -
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
0 -
Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, pretty much. It's a good attempt of the Leave side to try to give the impression that there's some sort of symmetry of risk, but frankly that is verging on loony.Philip_Thompson said:
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?Richard_Nabavi said:
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."runnymede said:Gerard Lyons, well known City economist comes out for Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/24/gerard-lyons-the-eu-is-like-the-titanic-and-we-need-to-jump-off/
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.0 -
The decision to release the report today was made two weeks ago.isam said:
Does seem odd to claim the BBC are biased towards talking about the paedophilia of its employees over bad immigration numbers for a Conservative GovtAlastairMeeks said:
That's quite the conspiracy theory.Casino_Royale said:
The Government released it today on the same day the migration figures were released. That was no accident.perdix said:
The Savile report is not a distraction cooked up by the Beeb to displace the migration stats. They want to say sorry but it really wasn't their fault! Even Sky spending a lot of time on the report.Casino_Royale said:
I think we all know whose side the BBC is on.tlg86 said:Good to see the BBC gave plenty of time to the Savile Report on the Six O'Clock News. I wonder what scandal they can cook up for the next ONS quarterly migration statistics release.
Leavers should not be so paranoid even though the Beeb gets EU money for some cooked up reason.
The BBC are happy to spend a lot of time on the story.
The BBC released Dame Janet Smith's review today. The ONS released its migration figures on its normal quarterly release date. For this to be no coincidence you'd have to take the view that the Remainians at the top of the Beeb were so desperate to keep the UK in the EU that they were prepared to throw the BBC itself under the bus to save it.0 -
How would it make them worse?Richard_Nabavi said:
What have any of those got to do with Brexit (other than the risk, indeed near-certainty, that Brexit would make them worse)?Philip_Thompson said:It is loony to foresee any risks to the EU at all when it has unresolved issues of mass unemployment, mass unskilled migration, no real growth for a decade already and a shrinking share of the global market?
OK then.
Within the EU we are subject to socialist workers rights etc that harm growth.
Within the EU we are subject to a Customs Union that means we have free trade with an ever-shrinking part of the global economy. Outside the EU we can negotiate free trade with that Union but are free to negotiate trade deals with other nations that the EU hasn't negotiated free trade with too. Expanding our market to the globe and not just an ever-smaller part of it.
Within the EU we will be subject to collateral damage if the EU's economy continues to stagnate or worse. If we can expand our trade to the growing parts of the globe then we will be more immunised to European shocks. We won't have our eggs in a creaking basket.0 -
HYUFD re BMG poll
The weighted numbers for this look closer to reality in the comparison of the young vs old.
Weighted numbers 18-25 = 175 Over 65 yr olds = 340.
But the LD weighted number of 75 compared to UKIPs 119 should be closer to 60. IMHO.0 -
When the stupid candidate is smart, and the sensible candidate is utterly flawed, get ready for a rocky ride.FF43 said:As the election will likely boil down to a choice between the unremittingly sensible Clinton and the irredeemably stupid Trump, it won't really be Democrat versus Republican. It will be Sensible versus Stupid. You have to think that Sensible will prevail in the privacy of the voting booth. Otherwise we really are in uncharted, and indeed rocky, waters.
0 -
Texas Monmouth
GOP
Cruz 38
Trump 23
Rubio 21
Carson 6
Kasich 5
Dems
Clinton 64
Sanders 30
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/fd1752af-cc7a-4b4c-9125-1d26f351cc4a.pdf
Texas Austin-American Statesman
GOP
Cruz 38
Trump 26
Rubio 13
Kasich 7
Carson 6
Dems
Clinton 66
Sanders 26
http://projects.statesman.com/news/texas-pulse-statesman-poll/#
TEGN/Survey USA
GOP
Cruz 32
Trump 32
Rubio 17
Kasich 6
Carson 5
Dems
Clinton 61
Sanders 32
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/TEGNA_SurveyUSA_Texas_Poll.pdf
0 -
How is that good?RodCrosby said:Good poll for Rubio in VA
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/monmouth-university-23870
T41 R27 C14
Cruz is collapsing but Trump is picking up the pieces like down south.
Trump being over 40 with Rubio still stuck in the 20's means it's almost over.0 -
Newt Gingrich is positively relishing the Trump phenomenon. This interview is worth listening to:Indigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3N_7OvBeQI0 -
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
0 -
IBID/Tipp National
GOP
Trump 31
Cruz 20
Rubio 18
Carson 8
Kasich 7
Dems
Clinton 45
Sanders 43
http://www.investors.com/politics/clinton-and-sanders-in-a-dead-heat-as-super-tuesday-looms/0 -
I'm suggesting turnout will match the GE which doesn't mean it will match Sindy as it's not the same. It means about three in four people who voted in Sindy voting for EU referendum.chestnut said:I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.
50% turnout means nearly nine in ten people who voted for EU referendum voting for AV.
Which seems more likely, a quarter of people who voted in Sindy not voting in EU Ref, or just over one in ten who will vote in EU ref didn't vote in the AV ref?0 -
I blame Fatcha.SouthamObserver said:
Lucky you. When my son was unemployed after leaving university he did not get a penny in benefits as his then girlfriend was working part time and the pair of them were deemed to have enough to live on. It's not like my day, I can tell you. The regime has got much, much stricter since the late 80s and early 90s.
0 -
Yes, Rubio will drop out after the Florida primary on March 15thTheWhiteRabbit said:
It's over.HYUFD said:Quinnipiac Florida GOP
Trump 44
Rubio 28
Cruz 12
Kasich 7
Carson 4
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=23270 -
Probably I can't imagine either voting for Trump short of a gun to their head!Pulpstar said:
They'll probably head out, vote for their local Republicans and skip voting in the General would be my guess.HYUFD said:
What is the betting Jeb Bush and Romney vote for Hillary over Trump?rottenborough said:
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrumpTGOHF said:Anything in this ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35662202 51 minutes ago
"Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has a "bombshell" hidden in his tax returns, the party's 2012 nominee Mitt Romney has warned.
Mr Romney says the billionaire was "dodging and delaying" on releasing his returns, which could shake up the race."
Mitt Romney, who was one of the dumbest and worst candidates in the history of Republican politics, is now pushing me on tax returns. Dope!
12:34 PM - 25 Feb 20160 -
Well VA is a perfect PR state, so Rubio picks up a nice bunch of delegates.Speedy said:
How is that good?RodCrosby said:Good poll for Rubio in VA
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/monmouth-university-23870
T41 R27 C14
Cruz is collapsing but Trump is picking up the pieces like down south.
Trump being over 40 with Rubio still stuck in the 20's means it's almost over.
He seems to be rising a little faster than I expected too.0 -
GE Oct 1974 Turnout 72.8%chestnut said:Turnout in 1975 was 65%.
GE 2015 Turnout 66.1%
65% - 7% = 57%.0 -
Flatlining EZ non-growth and growing non-EU share of the global economy isn't a "terrible way in which the EU will change". It is the status quo.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
Missing the opportunity of growing our trade with the rest of the globe because we can't unilaterally negotiate free trade unless we get 28 nations to agree with us (and the other nation to agree with all 28) is not risk-free.
EDIT: I'm struggling to make up my mind how to vote as I see risks on both sides. To see no risks whatsoever to the EU is not right though.0 -
Hardly surprising, the SNP were over 90% YesWanderer said:
The UKIP subsample is 93% Remain?!HYUFD said:Full BMG figures
UK Remain 52
Leave 48
England Remain 50
Leave 50
Scotland Remain 62
Leave 38
Wales Remain 53
Leave 47
NI Remain 57
Leave 43
ABC1 Remain 57
Leave 43
C2DE Remain 44
Leave 56
Tory Remain 57
Leave 43
Labour Remain 72
Leave 28
LD Remain 85
Leave 15
UKIP Remain 93
Leave 7
SNP Remain 60
Leave 40
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-FOR-EVENING-STANDARD-EU-250216.pdf0 -
Rubio's biggest problem is that Cruz is going to win Texas, and Rubio won't win Florida !
Who is the anti-Trump candidate then ?0 -
Trump has long had a friendly relationship with GiulianiIndigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9VYjuXfiP40 -
0
-
Have you ever considered that the 'known baseline of the status quo' might be shitting all over millions of people different to your good self ?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
There's more to the world than the privileged folk of deepest Wealdon.
0 -
This stuff about free trade deals with other countries is fantasy. It seems to be based an on incredibly naive view that somehow we'd be able to negotiate better deals that the EU can. Quite why any other country would want to bother giving us better terms is never explained.Philip_Thompson said:How would it make them worse?
Within the EU we are subject to socialist workers rights etc that harm growth.
Within the EU we are subject to a Customs Union that means we have free trade with an ever-shrinking part of the global economy. Outside the EU we can negotiate free trade with that Union but are free to negotiate trade deals with other nations that the EU hasn't negotiated free trade with too. Expanding our market to the globe and not just an ever-smaller part of it.
Within the EU we will be subject to collateral damage if the EU's economy continues to stagnate or worse. If we can expand our trade to the growing parts of the globe then we will be more immunised to European shocks. We won't have our eggs in a creaking basket.
In any case, I simply don't see how anyone can make the argument with a straight face, given that the single most successful exporting economy in the developed world is Germany. What is currently stopping us expanding our trade more than we currently are? Are there any industries clamouring for free-trade agreements which can't be achieved via the EU?
As for the collateral damage from Eurozone troubles, we'd be hit badly anyway. If anything that is an argument for staying in, to help prevent any lurch to protectionism and socialism.0 -
Erm on that basis surely UKIP would be 90% out, not 90% remain?HYUFD said:
Hardly surprising, the SNP were over 90% YesWanderer said:
The UKIP subsample is 93% Remain?!HYUFD said:Full BMG figures
UK Remain 52
Leave 48
England Remain 50
Leave 50
Scotland Remain 62
Leave 38
Wales Remain 53
Leave 47
NI Remain 57
Leave 43
ABC1 Remain 57
Leave 43
C2DE Remain 44
Leave 56
Tory Remain 57
Leave 43
Labour Remain 72
Leave 28
LD Remain 85
Leave 15
UKIP Remain 93
Leave 7
SNP Remain 60
Leave 40
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-FOR-EVENING-STANDARD-EU-250216.pdf0 -
Who is to say our next contribution in 3 years time won;t be GBP20bn?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!0 -
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
0 -
I am not surprised. From my subjective POV, Trump is clearly a charlatan who will say anything, no matter how out of line, to get into power. He is clearly successful in convincing the masses of what he says he will do, that he almost certainly won't do any of if actually he gets into power. But people aren't voting for him to not what he says he will do, so the fact he may be more sensible that he sounds doesn't affect whether people will vote for him.Indigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
Does any of that convolution make sense?0 -
It's not the number that surprises meHYUFD said:
Hardly surprising, the SNP were over 90% YesWanderer said:
The UKIP subsample is 93% Remain?!HYUFD said:Full BMG figures
UK Remain 52
Leave 48
England Remain 50
Leave 50
Scotland Remain 62
Leave 38
Wales Remain 53
Leave 47
NI Remain 57
Leave 43
ABC1 Remain 57
Leave 43
C2DE Remain 44
Leave 56
Tory Remain 57
Leave 43
Labour Remain 72
Leave 28
LD Remain 85
Leave 15
UKIP Remain 93
Leave 7
SNP Remain 60
Leave 40
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-FOR-EVENING-STANDARD-EU-250216.pdf0 -
But if you are of a certain vintage, you are not concerned about the future of the country past a very close horizon. Playing it safe sounds more attractive if you don't figure your chances are good of benefiting from the increase in business in maybe five years after the fuss has died down. So you run around shouting scare stories about how the country is going to implode if we lose 2-3% of GDP over the next few years from a BrExit because I mean we never lost that much under say the Brown premiership, and I distinctly remember the corpses laying unburied in the street and brimstone falling from the sky.Philip_Thompson said:Within the EU we will be subject to collateral damage if the EU's economy continues to stagnate or worse. If we can expand our trade to the growing parts of the globe then we will be more immunised to European shocks. We won't have our eggs in a creaking basket.
The Old Testament metaphors for the modest financial inconvenience for a small number of years before we are able to open our markets to huge new areas that are largely untapped now because the EU can't or won't sign a trade agreement, are either amusing, or wearing, I am not quite sure which.
0 -
Turnout in the 1975 EEC referendum was close to 70% and this will be a more passionate campaignchestnut said:I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.0 -
I think they've been stopped.Sean_F said:Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
Edit: I mean as regards the UK. I think the moves towards ever-closer union will now be confined to the Eurozone and Eurozone satellites. This is partly the renegotiation, but mainly because of a growing weary realisation amongst our EU friends that it's just easier to proceed without us.0 -
Hilarymentum in Virginia:
56 vs 340 -
65/72.8 = 89.3% relative turnoutTCPoliticalBetting said:
GE Oct 1974 Turnout 72.8%chestnut said:Turnout in 1975 was 65%.
GE 2015 Turnout 66.1%
65% - 7% = 57%.
89.3 * 66.1% = 59%
Though I think interest in the EU may be higher now than it was then.0 -
That goes down as the most optimistic comment of the campaign so far.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think they've been stopped.Sean_F said:Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
On opting out of "ever closer union"Sir Konrad Schiemann says the phrase is ‘more in the nature of an aspiration than a legally binding commitment to achieve anything in particular. Although I have judged many cases in which the legality of EU and national legislation and decisions has been in issue, I do not recollect a challenge based on an assertion that the measure in question was in breach of a legal obligation to achieve ever closer union.’
0 -
90% Out yes sorryTheWhiteRabbit said:
Erm on that basis surely UKIP would be 90% out, not 90% remain?HYUFD said:
Hardly surprising, the SNP were over 90% YesWanderer said:
The UKIP subsample is 93% Remain?!HYUFD said:Full BMG figures
UK Remain 52
Leave 48
England Remain 50
Leave 50
Scotland Remain 62
Leave 38
Wales Remain 53
Leave 47
NI Remain 57
Leave 43
ABC1 Remain 57
Leave 43
C2DE Remain 44
Leave 56
Tory Remain 57
Leave 43
Labour Remain 72
Leave 28
LD Remain 85
Leave 15
UKIP Remain 93
Leave 7
SNP Remain 60
Leave 40
http://www.bmgresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CONFIDENTIAL-BMG-POLL-FOR-EVENING-STANDARD-EU-250216.pdf0 -
Massive increase in regulation? inbuilt socialism swamping Britain's businesses? EU Taxation to pay for the EU's gargantuan socialist failures? Ever growing democratic deficits?Richard_Nabavi said:
I think they've been stopped.Sean_F said:Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
0 -
Even if it was 59% that would match the turnout in the 2001 general election, though I expect it will be higherPhilip_Thompson said:
65/72.8 = 89.3% relative turnoutTCPoliticalBetting said:
GE Oct 1974 Turnout 72.8%chestnut said:Turnout in 1975 was 65%.
GE 2015 Turnout 66.1%
65% - 7% = 57%.
89.3 * 66.1% = 59%
Though I think interest in the EU may be higher now than it was then.0 -
There isn't a linear scale from good to bad that applies to all trade deals in all circumstances. While the collective weight of the EU certainly means that it has more leverage, it also means that negotiations can get bogged down by elements which might be irrelevant to the concerns of some member states taken individually.Richard_Nabavi said:
This stuff about free trade deals with other countries is fantasy. It seems to be based an on incredibly naive view that somehow we'd be able to negotiate better deals that the EU can. Quite why any other country would want to bother giving us better terms is never explained.Philip_Thompson said:How would it make them worse?
Within the EU we are subject to socialist workers rights etc that harm growth.
Within the EU we are subject to a Customs Union that means we have free trade with an ever-shrinking part of the global economy. Outside the EU we can negotiate free trade with that Union but are free to negotiate trade deals with other nations that the EU hasn't negotiated free trade with too. Expanding our market to the globe and not just an ever-smaller part of it.
Within the EU we will be subject to collateral damage if the EU's economy continues to stagnate or worse. If we can expand our trade to the growing parts of the globe then we will be more immunised to European shocks. We won't have our eggs in a creaking basket.0 -
Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic. He has spent the past 18 months or so looking for every excuse under the sun to support us staying in and his frankly ludicrous puff job on the renegotiation along with his constant deriding of any possible alternatives simply mark him out as someone to be scorned.Sean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
No doubt when the whole thing does turn bad he will be happily continuing with his Comical Ali denials.0 -
I would make Trump a narrow favourite versus Hillary.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
0 -
Not if the assumptions and formulae used does not reflect a realistic assessment of how each group and voting pattern usually behave. Young voters IMHO are widely over estimated in some polls.Sean_F said:
Without doubt, polls are showing a higher likelihood to vote for Leave at the moment. Conversely, Remain is doing best among those least likely to vote. That's good news for Leave.chestnut said:
The headline numbers often disguise the reality.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And yet for all the torrent of negativity re the agreement and the immigration problems remain seem to be maintaining a lead. I would suggest that the disputes on the agreement and immigration may not be playing out in the populace, as they take the much more important view as to whether they feel economically and personally secure in the EU or not. Leave, if they want to win, need to get away from the minutiae and concentrate on proving how we can be, at the very least as safe and secure as we are now or they will lose.chestnut said:
The point is that among those certain or likely to vote, leave is ahead.HYUFD said:
Overall BMG has it Remain 44% Leave 41% undecided 15% and 52% Remain 48% Leave excluding don't knowsSean_F said:WRT BMG, among those Certain/Likely to Vote it's Leave 44%, Remain 42%, among those unsure, unlikely, or certain not to vote it's Remain 39% to Leave 25%.
Remain's 'lead' is dependent on people saying they are 5/10 to vote or less.
On my visit to the barbers earlier I saw the Sun. Unremittingly negative about the EU - double page spread, editorial etc.
Dave's deal is a worthless dud, a million more migrants on the way and so on.
The 9/10 and 10/10 numbers in many pre-election polls with ICM, Opinium etc were showing a big Tory win - but that isn't necessarily the topline figure the pollsters and their sponsors push out.
The BMG poll has around 65% of their sample claiming to be certain to vote. Those people are favouring leave.
Is turnout likely to be over 65%?
Many of the flawed polls pre-election paid too much heed to people who usually did not vote. Some of the headline numbers in circulation are repeating this.
But, that also shows that Leave are close to maximising their vote, whereas there's still scope for Remain to grow their vote.
Also, I ask our PB audience a wider question.
Are our pollsters using the same voter data that the new boundaries are being drawn up on?
0 -
x
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EUSean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!0 -
I'll try a simple explanation why it can be done, because we as the fifth largest economy in the globe are a nation worth dealing with and in a negotiation we would be able to negotiate to terms that satisfy us and whoever we are dealing with.Richard_Nabavi said:
This stuff about free trade deals with other countries is fantasy. It seems to be based an on incredibly naive view that somehow we'd be able to negotiate better deals that the EU can. Quite why any other country would want to bother giving us better terms is never explained.Philip_Thompson said:How would it make them worse?
Within the EU we are subject to socialist workers rights etc that harm growth.
Within the EU we are subject to a Customs Union that means we have free trade with an ever-shrinking part of the global economy. Outside the EU we can negotiate free trade with that Union but are free to negotiate trade deals with other nations that the EU hasn't negotiated free trade with too. Expanding our market to the globe and not just an ever-smaller part of it.
Within the EU we will be subject to collateral damage if the EU's economy continues to stagnate or worse. If we can expand our trade to the growing parts of the globe then we will be more immunised to European shocks. We won't have our eggs in a creaking basket.
In any case, I simply don't see how anyone can make the argument with a straight face, given that the single most successful exporting economy in the developed world is Germany. What is currently stopping us expanding our trade more than we currently are? Are there any industries clamouring for free-trade agreements which can't be achieved via the EU?
As for the collateral damage from Eurozone troubles, we'd be hit badly anyway. If anything that is an argument for staying in, to help prevent any lurch to protectionism and socialism.
Whereas as in the EU every member essentially has a veto, we need to satisfy the needs of us, whoever we are dealing with, France, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
See the difference? Deals get blocked unless we can meet the lowest common denominator of not just us and our trading partners, but us and everyone else.
Shorter explanation: Nations outside the customs union like EFTA nations HAVE signed deals the EU hasn't so for what possible reason can't we?0 -
You are completely mad.Richard_Tyndall said:<
Surely by now no one can doubt that Richard N was, is and always will be an unreconstructed Eurofanatic.0 -
I'm stunned I tell you.MP_SE said:0 -
I find that video deeply disturbing.HYUFD said:
Trump has long had a friendly relationship with GiulianiIndigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9VYjuXfiP40 -
There was a higher level of electoral participation in the 1970s though. Still, I agree that turnout this time is likely to be at GE levels.HYUFD said:
Turnout in the 1975 EEC referendum was close to 70% and this will be a more passionate campaignchestnut said:I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.0 -
The move towards political union has been going on for close to 100 years. This idea that we can stop it or somehow opt out of it whilst remaining in the EU is naive to put it nicely, idiotic to put it not so nicely.Indigo said:
That goes down as the most optimistic comment of the campaign so far.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think they've been stopped.Sean_F said:Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?
0 -
Once we get into April and the campaign starts proper with live tv debates and wall to wall coverage I would expect interest to grow towards that of a general election. It was interesting to note an advert in today's Daily Wail for Ryanair's very pro Europe stance, the first pro europe advert I have seen from any high profile commercial company0
-
Which is why - as I've been saying for about six months (albeit with a little inside information - that I think Bloomberg will run.MP_SE said:
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
0 -
An expert that cost me £100 last Saturday night with your panicking posts about Cruz/Rubio looking in poll position in SC exit polls!!Speedy said:
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid:
Less immigration.
Protectionism
Anti-corruption
Fewer wars
More healthcare
Strong defence
Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds:
More immigration
Wall Street
More wars
More of the same
First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/love-war-with-james-carville-and-mary-matalin/
The same applies to Hillary.0 -
I wonder if an organisation such as Migration Watch have a bombshell of a report yet to come out into the effects of immigration on pay rates and housing costs?isam said:x
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EUSean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
0 -
Oh, a politician.FF43 said:
I am not surprised. From my subjective POV, Trump is clearly a charlatan who will say anything, no matter how out of line, to get into power.Indigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
0 -
That is true, but the converse also applies, namely that the big trading players (basically US and China) prefer to deal with the EU as a big player.williamglenn said:There isn't a linear scale from good to bad that applies to all trade deals in all circumstances. While the collective weight of the EU certainly means that it has more leverage, it also means that negotiations can get bogged down by elements which might be irrelevant to the concerns of some member states taken individually.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do free trade deals. What I am saying is that there's no low-hanging fruit here which makes the possibility of independent trade deals a significant factor. In other words, it's largely irrelevant either way. In practice they'd probably be modelled on EU deals anyway.0 -
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.isam said:x
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EUSean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!0 -
While the leave campaign are all over the shop with terrorists this and that and the deal doesn't do much and / or can be challenged in the courts, they are missing the one clear message....voting to remain doesn't mean a "freeze" on our integration into the EU project, simply a slowing of the process.kle4 said:
I'm stunned I tell you.MP_SE said:
The choice is really out or ever closer union, when I believe most people want the opposite direction of travel, EU with less closer union i.e. yes to the trade stuff, less of the political meddling.0 -
I'd be astonished if turnout doesn't reach at least 60%. If not quite as visceral as the Scot Indy Ref it blows the silly AV Ref out of the water.0
-
Anyone have any idea how American Samoa might vote ?
Have put in 60-40 to Hilary but not sure.0 -
Since the Euro's creation, the Eurozone has (somewhat surprisingly) a better job creation record than the US.Philip_Thompson said:
It is loony to foresee any risks to the EU at all when it has unresolved issues of mass unemployment, mass unskilled migration, no real growth for a decade already and a shrinking share of the global market?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, pretty much. It's a good attempt of the Leave side to try to give the impression that there's some sort of symmetry of risk, but frankly that is verging on loony.Philip_Thompson said:
What about the risks to remaining? Are you just writing them off altogether?Richard_Nabavi said:
"Leaving creates initial challenges over passporting of financial services, and possible loss of euro clearing, but I am optimistic."runnymede said:Gerard Lyons, well known City economist comes out for Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/24/gerard-lyons-the-eu-is-like-the-titanic-and-we-need-to-jump-off/
Well, that's all right then.
At least he acknowledges the issues and risks, which is several thousand percent better than most Leavers.
What a pity that no work has been done developing these ideas. The trouble is that it's a bit late now to leave on the off-chance that his optimism is well-founded.
OK then.
See: http://www.thstailwinds.com/the-labour-market-labyrinth/0 -
Havng gone through the decimilsation and an explosion in inflation, there was a massive interest in europe in 1975. We also had less media and no PC games to distract the masses.Philip_Thompson said:
65/72.8 = 89.3% relative turnoutTCPoliticalBetting said:
GE Oct 1974 Turnout 72.8%chestnut said:Turnout in 1975 was 65%.
GE 2015 Turnout 66.1%
65% - 7% = 57%.
89.3 * 66.1% = 59%
Though I think interest in the EU may be higher now than it was then.
0 -
Which will guarantee a Trump victory.rcs1000 said:
Which is why - as I've been saying for about six months (albeit with a little inside information - that I think Bloomberg will run.MP_SE said:
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
0 -
Yes, it will be a more passionate campaign than thenWanderer said:
There was a higher level of electoral participation in the 1970s though. Still, I agree that turnout this time is likely to be at GE levels.HYUFD said:
Turnout in the 1975 EEC referendum was close to 70% and this will be a more passionate campaignchestnut said:I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.0 -
The US likes also to deal with groups of nations, of which the EU is one but see also the TPP which is further along than TTIP and likely to come into effect first. The UK would almost certainly be able to sign on to the heads of terms agreed in either the TPP or TTIP.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is true, but the converse also applies, namely that the big trading players (basically US and China) prefer to deal with the EU as a big player.williamglenn said:There isn't a linear scale from good to bad that applies to all trade deals in all circumstances. While the collective weight of the EU certainly means that it has more leverage, it also means that negotiations can get bogged down by elements which might be irrelevant to the concerns of some member states taken individually.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can't do free trade deals. What I am saying is that there's no low-hanging fruit here which makes the possibility of independent trade deals a significant factor. In other words, it's largely irrelevant either way.0 -
Yes, should have had a warning attached, apologiesCasino_Royale said:
I find that video deeply disturbing.HYUFD said:
Trump has long had a friendly relationship with GiulianiIndigo said:
Or the electorate figures that it has been lied to and screwed over by professional politicians enough, and that the chances of a gifted amateur doing any worse is actually quite small. I read in today's Telegraph that the great and the good of the GOP (in the person of Giuliani) are now resigned to Trump and starting to quietly advise him, and actually finding there are whole areas of policy that he is quite amenable to take advice on.FF43 said:The Trump supporters' philosophy seems to boil down to "We were told to vote for 'sensible' people like the Bushes and the Clintons and look where that got us! I'm going to vote stupid this time. Unlike those 'sensible' people, Trump hasn't betrayed me. Yet."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9VYjuXfiP40 -
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to votePhilip_Thompson said:
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.isam said:x
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EUSean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway0 -
More passionate for Conservatives, far less for Labour.HYUFD said:
Yes, it will be a more passionate campaign than thenWanderer said:
There was a higher level of electoral participation in the 1970s though. Still, I agree that turnout this time is likely to be at GE levels.HYUFD said:
Turnout in the 1975 EEC referendum was close to 70% and this will be a more passionate campaignchestnut said:I suspect that many people will be so nonplussed by the subject matter that turnout will struggle to match the GE.
It's not the same as SIndy because the ties that bind us in the UK run far deeper.
A shared bank, a shared currency, shared debts, shared pensions, shared land, shared resources and investments, shared history and so on.
The EU just doesn't reach that far.
0 -
Your attention to detail is impressive!Pulpstar said:Anyone have any idea how American Samoa might vote ?
Have put in 60-40 to Hilary but not sure.0 -
Will the GOP debate tonight change much?
I can't help but think the risk is on Trump - unless they've done some kind of deal, Cruz has no reason not to go for trump's jugular.
I've laid off all liabilities pre-ST, anyway, so i'm playing with profit;
GOP;
Cruz +22 units
Everyone else -0.5u
POTUS;
Trump +6.5u
Cruz +40u
Ryan + 300u
Everyone else +0.5u
Is anyone balancing their book differently?0 -
Its interesting to compare average annual growth of GDP per capita - the ONS lists it back to 1956 thus allowing six decades of comparison:
1956-1965 2.5%
1966-1975 2.1%
1976-1985 2.3%
1985-1995 2.3%
1996-2005 2.6%
2006-2015 0.5%
And that's why the Brown and Cameron governments have borrowed a trillion pounds.
I would link to the data but the ONS appears to have changed their website this afternoon.
0 -
Hillary may be running to be president in the 1990s but Trump is running to be president in the 1950s, neither represent the US of today. Trump repels plenty of Hispanics in the likes of Nevada and moderate suburbanites in the likes of Virginia, both swing statesSpeedy said:
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid:
Less immigration.
Protectionism
Anti-corruption
Fewer wars
More healthcare
Strong defence
Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds:
More immigration
Wall Street
More wars
More of the same
First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/love-war-with-james-carville-and-mary-matalin/
The same applies to Hillary.0 -
NominationPong said:Will the GOP debate tonight change much?
I can't help but think the risk is on Trump - and unless they've done some kind of deal, Cruz has no reason not to go for trump's jugular.
I've laid off all liabilities pre-ST, anyway, so i'm playing with profit;
GOP;
Cruz +22 units
Everyone else -0.5u
POTUS;
Trump +6.5u
Cruz +40u
Ryan + 300u
Everyone else +0.5u
Is anyone balancing their book differently?
Cruz +3
Trump +2
Rubio -1.3
Kasich -4.3
Potus
Trump +1.5
Bloomberg 0
Others -0.30 -
The exit polls underestimated Trump and overestimated Cruz.Casino_Royale said:
An expert that cost me £100 last Saturday night with your panicking posts about Cruz/Rubio looking in poll position in SC exit polls!!Speedy said:
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid:
Less immigration.
Protectionism
Anti-corruption
Fewer wars
More healthcare
Strong defence
Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds:
More immigration
Wall Street
More wars
More of the same
First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/love-war-with-james-carville-and-mary-matalin/
The same applies to Hillary.0 -
And the polling I've seen is that Bloomberg will hurt Hillary more than Trumprcs1000 said:
Which is why - as I've been saying for about six months (albeit with a little inside information - that I think Bloomberg will run.MP_SE said:
Clinton has a lot of baggage. I could see Trump going after her war on women, emails, Clinton Foundation sleaze, Benghazi, etc. I find her utterly repulsive and would rather anyone but her as POTUS.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
0 -
Or Leave need to find a way to appeal to people who bother to vote not just those who don't. I think Carswell may have had an effect on getting the vote out in Clacton like he did in previous elections though even Carswell was within a 4% swing of losing the seat. I'd be curious too given that the Turnout rise in Clacton as a whole in 2015 vs 2010 was well BELOW the national average to see how much of an effect was in reality had in Jaywick?isam said:
So LEAVE have to hammer the CD section of society (the ones that are seriously affected by the migration) and tell them the only way to change it is to votePhilip_Thompson said:
We were having this discussion at the start of the last thread. According to IPSOS-MORI they're not linked whatsoever for the AB voters that have the highest turnout.isam said:x
Bordering on the hilarious (although worrying that some people might listen to these no nothings) that some people on here are saying LEAVE should talk about the economy not immigration, as if the two aren't inextricably linked in the daily lives of millions of people whose wages, and job security, are through the floor thanks to mass immigration of unskilled labour from the EUSean_F said:
Is it only the interests of the City that concern you? You aren't bothered by moves towards political union, and ongoing reductions in self-government?Richard_Nabavi said:
It's a known baseline of the status-quo. I don't think the more fanciful attempts to frighten voters with the terrible ways in which the EU will change are at all convincing, no.Sean_F said:Do you really think that Remain is risk-free and cost-free?
The only substantive risk is Eurozone hegemony damaging the City, but as we've discussed almost any alternative arrangement is worse in that respect. At least, I assume that to be the case; Gerard Lyons in the article runnymede linked to seems to be advocating the Full Monty option. Gulp!
People can hate on Farage all they like, but he accompanied UKIP activists to the worst bits of the worst town in England (Jaywick) in order to get the vote out at the by election. I was there, and those people are who need waking up and getting to the polling station. Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway0 -
That hides some trends:another_richard said:Its interesting to compare average annual growth of GDP per capita - the ONS lists it back to 1956 thus allowing six decades of comparison:
1956-1965 2.5%
1966-1975 2.1%
1976-1985 2.3%
1985-1995 2.3%
1996-2005 2.6%
2006-2015 0.5%
And that's why the Brown and Cameron governments have borrowed a trillion pounds.
I would link to the data but the ONS appears to have changed their website this afternoon.
1956-1970: oil prices low, high growth
1970-1981: oil prices high, low growth
1981-2000: oil prices low, high growth
2000-2015: oil prices high, low growth
2015-???: oil prices low, ???0 -
The exit polls did just fine, as I posted at the time a Trump victory seemed likely.Speedy said:
The exit polls underestimated Trump and overestimated Cruz.Casino_Royale said:
An expert that cost me £100 last Saturday night with your panicking posts about Cruz/Rubio looking in poll position in SC exit polls!!Speedy said:
As an expert in US politics and one of the few if the only one that predicted the Trump wave back in May (and that Jeb was already politically dead) I can tell you this.Casino_Royale said:On topic, now that Trump looks a shoe-in for the nomination very similar arguments seem to me to be being used as to why he'd never get to be POTUS, and by similar to people from 6 months ago.
Trump has a 60% chance to beat Hillary, the people whom Trump attracts live in swing states and the people whom he repels are living in safe states.
On policy grounds he looks very solid:
Less immigration.
Protectionism
Anti-corruption
Fewer wars
More healthcare
Strong defence
Change
The problem with this is his personality, the strong leader image that he projects is attracting and repelling a lot of people since it magnifies his policy statements, and his character comes off as forceful and insulting.
To sum it up, Trump looks good on policy, probably because he is a strong leader that he can afford to have popular policies that his party would never otherwise support, but there is also resistance to these policies and his character.
Hillary looks less firm on policy grounds:
More immigration
Wall Street
More wars
More of the same
First female president
Hillary's strength is that there is no strong institution in the democratic party left to oppose her policies from the inside, that is also her weakness since there is no mass movement to support her. The stench of corruption and her really old style policies from the 90's doesn't help, Hillary is running like it's 1996, and she is running for president since 1996 and it's shows.
As James Carville (Bill Clinton's campaign manager) said in 1992:
"He reeks of yesterday," Carville said, captured in the award-winning documentary, "The War Room. "When I see an old calendar, I see George Bush's face on it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/love-war-with-james-carville-and-mary-matalin/
The same applies to Hillary.0 -
Oh missed this part by the way. Wow appealing to those who vote, what a horrible idea!isam said:Vote Leave, IMO, appeal only to pseudo intellectuals who will vote anyway
Guess what, elections are won by convincing those who vote to vote for you.0 -
POTUS:Pong said:Will the GOP debate tonight change much?
I can't help but think the risk is on Trump - unless they've done some kind of deal, Cruz has no reason not to go for trump's jugular.
I've laid off all liabilities pre-ST, anyway, so i'm playing with profit;
GOP;
Cruz +22 units
Everyone else -0.5u
POTUS;
Trump +6.5u
Cruz +40u
Ryan + 300u
Everyone else +0.5u
Is anyone balancing their book differently?
Clinton 11.33
Sanders -1683.71
Rubio -429.53
Trump 1528.81
Cruz +104.76
Kasich -41.89
Biden 565.64
Gore -163.81
Kerry 470.64
Warren 595.89
Bloomberg -326
Field -2k or something.0
