politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Super Tuesday: Trump and Clinton didn’t quite get the predi

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.

Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?

According to Frontloader there are:

11 At large delegates
7 PLEO delagates
35 District
7 super delegates

Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.

http://frontloading.blogspot.co.uk/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html

PLEO is: PLEO delegates are defined as pledged party leaders and elected officials.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.

The PM is not treating voters as children.

The normal criticism is that he's too arrogant. Now he's being accused of not being arrogant enough.

Politics is hilarious!

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:

Clinton wins Alabama 77.8 - sanders 19.2% - Other 3%, and the delegates are shown assigned as 37 vs 4. But that only adds to 41, there are 53 pledged delegates from the state.

Are the remaining 12 proportional, or by district or what ?

According to Frontloader there are:

11 At large delegates
7 PLEO delagates
35 District
7 super delegates

Somewhere in there may be the answer! Highly complicated.

http://frontloading.blogspot.co.uk/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html

Thanks, nice to finally see a site with the rules. Totally absent from 538.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, the point is that some in the Remain campaign, such as the PM, are stating the Leave option is tantamount to economic suicide and would leave us dangerously exposed to terrorism and the Black Death. If it's that bad, why's he even giving us the option? Parents don't ask their children if they'd like cheese, ham, or razorblades in their sandwiches.

The PM is not treating voters as children.

The normal criticism is that he's too arrogant. Now he's being accused of not being arrogant enough.

Politics is hilarious!

He kind of is, though. It's like giving a child a razorblade sandwich and then berating them about how horrendously risky and stupid it would be to even contemplate eating it. You're either lying about the razorblades, or you've done something terrible by offering it.

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

I'm not so sure.

When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.

Ooppps.

Shadsy goes 8-13 Clinton beats Trump.

The classic obvious looking "It'll probably happen" bet that is utterly horrendous value

"EFTA Secretariat has 9% of EU laws adopted by Norway so where does the 75% claim from the FO come from?"

Neil "How many EU laws does Switzerland write in? Hancock = dont know. Neil = its zero

Project lie exposed...

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

I'm not so sure.

When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.

Ooppps.

That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

Would have thought that would be easier if a conventional conservative like Cruz lost. They'll blame Trump losing on him not being conservative enough!!

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, I'm not attacking Cameron for being too arrogant/not arrogant enough. I'm attacking him for being full of shit. That was perfectly clear in my post.

Ah, that's all right then!

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.

John "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain didn't challenge any of the sacred cows of the modern GOP.

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

I'm not so sure.

When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.

Ooppps.

That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.

I'm not so sure there's any more mileage in losing audaciously or shamelessly.

When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.

Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, I'm not attacking Cameron for being too arrogant/not arrogant enough. I'm attacking him for being full of shit. That was perfectly clear in my post.

Hmm. Cameron turning the referendum into a 4-month long lie-a-thon certainly has its drawbacks:

1) The party base is further alienated with each whopper
2) Big risk of becoming a laughing stock outside the party

Conclusion: Cameron (and those associated closely with him like Osborne are finished as a political force if they keep this up, regardless of the referendum result. If Cameron clings to office afterwards, then getting legislation through will become very difficult ...eg the reduction in seats to 600.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.

Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.

It's pretty exhaustive.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Norman Smith
Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary

Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.

Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?

JackW said:

How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

Perhaps they could try a platform of economic populism and reducing immigration; maybe find someone high-profile from outside the political establishment to front it... He'd need to be someone pretty outspoken to be able to convince voters he wasn't just a puppet.

It's the Roget Thesaurus of Apocalyptic Predictions

Where is the positive case here? Nowhere.

If it wasn't so absurd, it'd be insulting

nigel4england said:

Plato_Says said:

Norman Smith
Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary

Gets funnier by the day, do they really think we are stupid?

Charles said:

Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.

It's pretty exhaustive.

I haven't yet studied it, but it certainly looks very chunky - the kind of stuff they should have been doing three years ago in preparation for an agreed line and coherent case now.

Richard_Nabavi said:

JackW said:

Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.

Both parties consistently win 44-53% of the vote, nationally, which means both parties are pretty good at appealing to the middle ground.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Norman Smith
Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary

Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.

Thats actually an argument for it taking a lot less. Unprecedented EU integration is going to be much more complex than a trade agreement we have existing templates for.

First time in PMQ's Scots Nats roll friendly pro europe quotes to David Cameron.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.

In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?

Does anyone have a SkyBet account with "Best Odds Guaranteed" (Mine doesn't) that can get on for £100 on something ?

@faisalislam: Connoisseurs joke there from the PM about the "single transferable question" asked by Davis rather than Jenkin

NorfolkTilIDie said:

Thats actually an argument for it taking a lot less. Unprecedented EU integration is going to be much more complex than a trade agreement we have existing templates for.

Depends on the nature of the agreement. Five or six years is plausible for a new deal not based on existing models (as some people have been suggesting), but I agree it's an upper limit. More likely a couple of years for an EEA-style deal.

Again it comes down to the same point: the Leave side have nothing specific to propose, so the Remain side get to define it for them. Exactly as predicted by me and many others.

LondonBob said:

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

edmundintokyo said:

JackW said:

Indeed. But there lies the problem for the GOP.

Lose with Trump or lose with Cruz or lose with Rubio with Trump a likely spoiler.

The difficulty for the GOP is that they are unable to reconcile a viable general election candidate with their desire for ideological purity or a populist head banger during the nomination race.

The advantage of losing with Trump is that he'll shake them out of some of the entrenched positions they've dug themselves into that nobody can oppose for fear of heresy, but aren't actually very popular even with right-wing voters. The example Noah Smith was giving the other day was opposing spending money to repair roads.

I'm not so sure.

When McCain lost in 08 we heard some GOP figures note that they had to widen their base and not alienate moderate, swing and minority voters especially the growing hispanic vote.

Ooppps.

That's my point, losing isn't enough to do it. They need someone audacious and shameless like Trump who can ditch the unhelpful orthdoxies and take the base with him while he does it.

I'm not so sure there's any more mileage in losing audaciously or shamelessly.

When Trump loses badly I think the GOP will think "we did that, got the T-shirt and got shafted." The more so if Trump takes down others down ticket.

Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

I doubt the answer is to be found with someone who thinks Minnesota is a target state for Republicans.

If Trump manages to purge the Republican Party of the neocons they will become very electable again, if nothing else this must be Trump's goal. The Iraq war legacy must be buried, immigration made an issue and concern for the working class a focus. Continuing on with the policies of Bush with candidates like McCain and Romney is daft.

This sort of focus on the working class??

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/22/analysis-of-donald-trump-tax-plan-sees-a-boon-for-wealthy-and-trillions-in-debt/

Scott_P said:

MaxPB said:

If only Andrew Neil was the main interviewer for the BBC.

His line was pretty weak

"What is your answer to this hypothetical question?"

"It's hypothetical"

"But what is your answer? Why won't you answer?"

The entire debate is about a hypothetical!! You can't talk about all the job losses and extra terrorism if we leave and then not answer questions because its 'hypothetical'!!

Speaking of sloth - anyone know how long before we find out which of the Leave campaigns is selected to receive all that lovely tax payers largesse?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Did you look at the "lot of work" (I think you said "chunky") that I linked to yesterday.

It's pretty exhaustive.

I haven't yet studied it, but it certainly looks very chunky - the kind of stuff they should have been doing three years ago in preparation for an agreed line and coherent case now.

This is the sort of stuff that Business for Britain has been doing since it was founded in April 2013.

So they haven't been doing it for 3 years, I'll give you that

Polruan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.

In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?

I don't have a strong opinion on this overall but the advantages would be:
1) Britain gets out of the CAP.
2) The rest of the EU can integrate and reform without getting dicked about by the British all the time.

Polruan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.

In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?

Sovereignty. Democracy.

Freedom to agree your own trade deals outside of Europe.

Little stuff.

williamglenn said:

JackW said:

How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

Perhaps they could try a platform of economic populism and reducing immigration; maybe find someone high-profile from outside the political establishment to front it... He'd need to be someone pretty outspoken to be able to convince voters he wasn't just a puppet.

The Republican establishments first and foremost goal is reducing costs for the extremely wealthy. It makes no sense for them to drop that goal to win.

Wanderer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Wanderer said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Plato_Says said:

Norman Smith
Negotiating Brexit cd take longer than the second world war says the Foreign Secretary

Sounds very likely. The Lisbon Treaty took 8 years.

Remind me, Richard, were BMW's and Mercs and Audis and Porsches piled up on the dockside waiting for buyers whilst the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated for 8 years?

Why would they be on this occasion?

Ask Richard; he seems to think it will be beyond the wit of man to sort this out in anything other than a geological time-scale...

But we are talking about tariffs. There is no possibility of an embargo on continental goods. So where do the Mercs piled up at the dockside come from?

What we are talking about is making products British consumers like to buy more expensive, as well as pushing up the price of alternative products. How else do suppliers react when demand increases and competition decreases?

Charles said:

Polruan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Nabavi, except that you aren't even offering an argument against Cameron being full of shit over this referendum and the tidal wave of woe that will apparently engulf us if we vote Leave.

He's making his case, very well. The Leavers don't like it, and I don't blame them for that. I do blame them for not offering a coherent alternative. I warned four years ago that there was a hell of a lot of work they needed to do if they were to address the 'leap in the dark' problem, and they haven't done it. Worse still, they can't even agree on the number one issue of the whole referendum, namely freedom of movement.

In broad terms I still don't see the attraction for Leave in pinning itself to one faction of sceptics, but the issue of free movement does need addressing. It looks like there is a significant faction that want to leave but opt for an EEA/EFTA type arrangement which will necessitate continued free movement of labour but I really don't understand the basis on which this is attractive. Can any Leavers here who favour that option enlighten me?

Little stuff.

Please do not post on PB whilst standing naked in front of your cheval mirror.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, how big is vaping, though?

Massive.

JackW said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JackW said:

Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.

Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.

If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'

They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.

Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Max, how big is vaping, though?

MD,
An unscientific figure of the last couple of places that I worked. I would guess that it is marginally lower than the number of smokers.

Mr. Pubgoer/Mr. Max, interesting, though (to me) surprising.

SeanT said:

I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.

My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.

Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.

I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)

Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.

That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.

I'm the opposite. The more I think about it more I think we should get out and start making trade deals ASAP so they are in place before crap hits the fan. But think Remain is more likely as internet polls probably stuffed full of PB types who we know are more Leave heavy.

SeanT said:

I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.

My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.

Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.

I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)

Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.

That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.

The other big turnout group are the middle classes, who tend to be more Remain. But I agree with you, if turnout is below GE levels it will massively favour Leave.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Pubgoer/Mr. Max, interesting, though (to me) surprising.

Well I posted the link in a whatsapp group, and the two vapers in there seem very unimpressed with the idea of classing a non-tobacco product as tobacco just to get a bit more tax out of people.

taffys said:

JackW said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

JackW said:

Frankly it's a mess for the GOP. Whether it's the post general election Trump GOP or the non Trump GOP the question remains - How do the GOP cope with an ever changing demographic working against them, especially in swing states and their continuing inability to provide a viable alternative to Democrat contenders, who for all their faults are able to bring a coalition together and appear like a member of the human race to swing voters, independents and moderate voters?

And yet the GOP manages very well in congressional and gubernatorial elections. It's not the case that they don't have plenty of support to tap into.

Indeed but look at the type of winning GOP candidates that are elected in swing states.

If the Republican establishment are correct then all they have to do is wait until Trump gets stuffed in November and then tell the party 'we told you so'

They are against Trump because he might win, which mightily threatens their cosy positions.

Have you seen the republican voter numbers from Super Tuesday?? Record turnouts almost everywhere. Trump has electrified the Republican party.

The nature of POTOS/Congress means there is little way Trump could threaten "their cosy positions"

GOP turnout is excellent in a diverse and energized race. The Dem race is less interesting but I have little doubt the Trumpster will drive Dems to the polls in November too.

I've just done a Yougov poll which included e-cigarettes. Daft questions really. Nicotine is an acute poison and very unlikely to have any chronic effects (apart from addiction, obviously). The danger from tobacco smoke is chronic.

Confusion between hazard and risk, and between acute and chronic. Apples and oranges as usual.

You can vape around me with to your heart's content. You can't smoke, but bursting into flames is allowed.

Plato_Says said:

Did anyone bother watching PMQ's?

There's hardly a mention of it even on Twitter bar Acropolis joke. Even the journalists seem bored.

Corbyn and Cameron are just two hollow men. Their interactions bore.

@MSmithsonPB: PMQs no longer a must watch. It's just boring and tedious.

SouthamObserver said:

SeanT said:

I am in the strange yet unexciting position of edging nearer to REMAIN, while being slightly more convinced of a LEAVE victory.

My reasoning, such as it is: it looks more and more likely, to me, that the EU will collapse or radically change, anyway, in the next 5-10 years, given ongoing eurogeddon, migration crises. etc. This will perforce mean chaos, and then some form of Brexit: an associate membership.

Why add to the chaos, and why risk even more chaos, right now? There will be a more sensible and propitious time to tiptoe away from Brussels, and it will probably come very soon. And we will get a better deal, as there will be all to play for.

I'm not convinced of this argument, but it is swaying me. I am about 55% STAY at the moment (this could change after lunch, or after some particularly pompous, nauseating, sanctimonious post from Richard Nabavi, who is doing a good one man campaign for LEAVE)

Against that, the more I look at the turnout question, the more it seems to favour LEAVE. Oldies are very much LEAVE. LEAVERS are way more motivated. Turnout will be crucial, and when you look at those certain to vote, LEAVE is significantly ahead.

That's my one pence worth, pre lunch.

The other big turnout group are the middle classes, who tend to be more Remain. But I agree with you, if turnout is below GE levels it will massively favour Leave.

I would be shocked if turnout is below GE levels.

nigel4england said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

JJ, Right so we need to be credible on the economy....

That was how the Labour Party came to be providing outdoor relief for out-of-work failed Marxist finance ministers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/great-news-for-labour-jeremy-corbyn-is-now-being-advised-by-a-greek-biker-and-a-marxist-hack-a6905331.html

Nice response to Dodgy Dave's Acropolis Now "joke":

So not only does this Prime Minister see fit to talk down our Country at every turn, he also see it necessary to make a joke at Greece's expense, where many of its people are suffering daily. This 'man' is an ass. In addition, I understand that it was the EU's puppets who smashed their economy.

EU didn't smash their economy...The Greeks torpedoed their own economy. A place where paying tax is more an act of charity than a civil requirement.