Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How opinion on the referendum is going in first week after

@MSmithsonPB Yes, good odds there
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1. For the key 65+ age group, the unweighted 254 is changed with weighting to 222 whereas in the much less likely to vote group of 18-25 the unweighted number rises from 86 to 114 with weighting. This does not look to be a fair way to weight when the number of voters that will actually vote in the of 65+ age range is about 3 times that in the 18-25 range.
2. In the Certainty to Vote ( 9 and 10) the 18-25 certainty is 63% and the 65+ is 76%. Out of line with the known reality on which types of voters, by age, will actually vote.
Also the certainty to vote (10 rating) has Conservative voters with the 10 rating as less likely to vote than every party except the Greens...... Table 2/2 Shurely inaccurate?
Surely this is wrong - Saturday Feb 20th maybe?
But neither of us actually know. ComRes assumes that people are truthfully indicating whether they intend to vote, and if they take this and then add a layer of adjustment for what we think they'll do, we may be misrepresenting or even double-counting them.
I've zero faith at the moment.
As Britain's biggest bookie, they really do come across as a frit, tin-pot operation at times ..... goodness me, can't they lay a few quid at 10/1 without donning the brown trousers? Had I staked £100 then maybe. Perhaps they sensed that the word had just gone out on PB.com.
Btw, I also had a small saver on him leaving his current post during 2017, also at odds of 10/1. My bet wouldn't have been so small had Hills traders firstly rejected my originally requested stake of £5 ..... I mean how pathetic is that?
Anyway I'm very comfortable with those two bets in combination and will be surprised if one or other doesn't deliver, Osbo's already on borrowed time imho.
DYOR
The 18-34s has its unweighted number increased from 121 to 236. The Over 55s has its unweighted number decreased from to 592 to 371. (Page 4)
Does this ratio look right for these different voting patterns?
Should Survation be using narrower age ranges to pick up “certainty to vote” anomalies at the extremes of the age range and weighting accordingly?
There is a (small) possibility of a majority of the country being for Leave = EFTA
There is no possibility of Leave = Total Leave IMO. Between the Remain side and the fraction of the Leave side that backs EFTA there is definitely a majority.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html
According to IPSOS-MORI after the election AB voters are about as likely to vote as the elderly and DE voters about as unlikely as the young so it would be worth keeping an eye on this too.
Almost worth voting Leave to enjoy!
" The introduction of the euro could be a catalyst for more flexible, dynamic and prosperous economies in Europe."
http://archives.financialservices.house.gov/banking/42898bed.shtml
Trust?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466919/Control-freak-Chris-Evans-s-dictatorial-behaviour-Gear-set-forced-new-producer-quit-DIDN-T-want-hire-Matt-Le-Blanc.html
I will now get off my high-horse and go back to work...
If i had been presented with this as market research to support a product or customer service change I would have thrown it out.
OK, now I really have to go back to work...
Alastair, you're trying very hard to tar all leavers with the same brush.
I have never demanded a referendum, but given the poor hand delivered by the PM and the dreadful abuse of Govt power in the early stages of the campaign, I've become a firm Leaver. I'm also now considering campaigning.
I don't know a single local Tory activist who is campaigning for Remain....many party loyalists are being driven away by the condescension of the leadership.
Boris in Downing Street and Trump in the White House.
Has he not heard of the £11bn a year net that we pay in? That would at £50k each pay for 220,000 a year... Is that no enough civil servants to sort it out for 2 years? After that we make massive savings.
Simon Nixon @Simon_Nixon 2m2 minutes ago
Brexit would bring a daunting To Do list http://on.ft.com/1LLCJra
> Brexiteers should explain how they will pay for all the extra bureaucracy
@elashton: Just had chat with Nigel in pub. Is he disappointed that Douglas didn't show up at venue? "Douglas who?"
On @DouglasCarswell, Farage goes on: "He can do what he likes. I don't care." Pointedly says that UKIP's MEPs are "up for the fight".
He defo needs to be locked in a wood shed for the duration.
'The 'Remain' argument that works for me is 'The One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' scenario.
Boris in Downing Street and Trump in the White House.'
Did you actually leave London as you were promising to do if Boris was elected Mayor ?
Dumb leavers are happy to keep it stirred. If they carry on afterwards then Corbynites will be over the moon. And of course Farage is delighted to have such useful idiots around.
His platform? Drink-driving permits for fellow rural fuckwits...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpZL3DBAssc
To be a contrarian, there is a view that a Republican Party split between the blandness of Romney and the bat-shit craziness of the Tea Party needed a complete distraction in the shape of Trump, to have any chance of surviving. Either Trump becomes President, in which case the previous power structure in the party will be dismantled, but under a winner and not a loser. Or Trump screws up - in which case, the various factions can rally together under the flag of "Never again..." but with years rather than days to work out how.
"Juicy Fruit...."
Something I pointed out to someone yesterday, who said Trump was a joke and there's no way he could be president: he's completely OTT (and we mostly get to hear his various foreign pronouncements, which make him appear even more OTT), but without Trump's "distinctive" qualities, how could someone with his positions on e.g. abortion and healthcare have performed so well among the GOP base?
"On Friday, a few hours after Mr. Christie endorsed him, Mr. Trump collected support from a second governor, who in a radio interview said Mr. Trump could be “one of the greatest presidents.”
That governor was Paul LePage."
That says it all.
Anyway the transformation from a conservative to a nationalist party will be painful but more successful electorally for the GOP.
They have to get to terms that even their own voters like to have healthcare, basic services and a government to manage them and protect them, they can't go on blasting about Reagan and abolishing all taxes and government including schools and hospitals.
1. His independence from vested interests (other than his own)
2. His willingness not to be PC and say it as it is (or as Trump imagines it to be).
There is a presumption that much of what he says is performance, and that he'll actually be competent at the bits of government they care about - i.e. efficient delivery of a limited programme of domestic policies. There is also a suspicion that he is actually, for all his campaign rhetoric, centrist on most of the big defining issues (i.e. the issues that separate the US parties - abortion, healthcare, gun control, race, budget).
For the most part, insulting Johnny Foreigner adds to his appeal.
And the fact that Trump was actively fought by the entire republican establishment and won is an extra plus to him with all the voters that hate the republican establishment (7/8 of all voters).
Trump already has an effect in broadening the horizons of republican voters:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-brand-at-three-year-low-with-republicans-despite-recent-ratings-triumphs/
If fewer and fewer republicans watch Fox News because Fox comes anti-Trump the healthier their views will become, Fox News had a very bad influence on them.
It was GW Bush who expanded Medicaid and Medicare. It was Romney who tried the idea of the individual mandate, which failed in his state before Obama foisted it upon the nation as a whole. None of these were particularly brilliant successes for healthcare in the US, but it shows that the GOP cares about, thinks about, and innovates in relation to healthcare.
The Rust Belt tends to be way more Union territory than the DMV. The disaffected union blue collars are one of the larger groups flocking to the Trump message, so your thought that he would do well there has a ring of truth to it.
But I don't think UK observers get how big an issue the PC thing is - how outraged many parts of the non-liberal (US usage) population has become at the whole PC thing. That is 60-65% of the population and crosses pretty much all demographic groups (save perhaps Blacks and, to a lesser extent, Latinos), so the idea that Hillary would be a slam dunk against Trump is extraordinary to me.
On Social Security, the perception is more warranted and it is the result of a more conscious and justifiable set of policy decisions.
Or it might be a faulty poll sample. Who knows.
By the way, as cease-fires go, this one seems to have started quite well:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2016/0227/Syria-cease-fire-What-happened-on-Day-One
I'm not a huge fan of either US or Russian policy in the region, but they seem to have got their act together rather effectively this time.
Scummy barstewards like Farage and Galloway peddling their different bigotries know a bunch of dummies when they see them.
So far there was an exclusive on NBC about the polish workers of Trump, and instead of criticizing him that polish worker said that he would be a great president and would vote for him, so that didn't go as expected for NBC.
As to the rest, I think this vote is potentially very good for the Conservatives. If Leave wins they can absorb part of the UKIP vote and be polling in the mid 40's.
If Leave win it will be a very brave government that completely ignored half the populations voting almost entirely about immigration. If they take the EEA/EFTA they will be slammed from the rooftops from both sides for high handedness and ignoring the voters, and it would be close to electoral suicide even with Corbyn.
The sanctimonious left would adopt the attitude that it absolutely wasn't what they wanted but the voters had spoked and the government was ignoring it (whilst quietly brushing under the carpet that they had been supporting it as well until recently).
Wisconsin has sided with the Democrats in every presidential election since 88. If the Democrats winning it this year again it won't be because of Walker.