Then Trump's an idiot. Biden is a boring gaff prone cypher who's a decade past his sell by date. He can't debate and he can't inspire. Allegedly he fires up Democrats in the rust belt, but there isn't any actual evidence that the rust belt is chock full of people who want a President who's unable to remember the end to the story he started telling.
Have to agree on Biden, not sure he really fires up anyone...
In some ways he feels like a Hilary Clinton mark 2, once you take out the people who are supporting him just to beat Trump and the people who just think he is better than the other bad options you aren't left with much...
Clinton at least had the first woman president thing, which is a terrible reason alone to pick a president but seems more inspiring than anything Biden could offer.
A Biden-Trump election for the democrats would be all about we have to stop Trump, he would drive me the closest to abstaining or going 3rd party in an election (if I was American and had a vote)
It is the Remain campaign of 2016, the Clinton campaign of 2016, stop this terrible thing. The advantage I guess is he has come in and been a bit terrible..
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Biden won't even make it to the Iowa caucuses.
I foresee only half a dozen candidates making it to Iowa: Sanders, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, and perhaps two others (O'Rourke being the most likely tier three candidate to make it - and I'd tip him as the VP pick, assuming either Warren or Harris is the nominee).
My money is on Sanders withdrawing after losing Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I guess we'll see...
Do you anticipate it ending up between warren an Harris, and Harris getting the nomination?
I think that's the most likely scenario.
Still, there are probably many twists and turns to come. It's entirely possible that a tier two or tier three candidate could break out.
If nominee is Harris, Would the Sanders/Warren support get behind Harris, in contrast to how they did not seem energised by Hilary?
I think Harris is a good Democratic candidate. Based on the Barr hearing and the first debate, I think she would really get under Trump's skin.
"President Trump, I spend more than a decade putting criminals like you behind bars." and that kind of thing.
I also think she could have the same impact on black turnout in places like North Carolina that Obama did.
Re the Left of the Democrats. They were complacent in 2016. They didn't really think Trump could win, and therefore they sat at home and grumped. This time around, they will be far from complacent.
Another interesting aspect of this election, two things from 2016. Awareness now of foreign interference in the election, using new media. But also, lesson learnt from Brexit ref, the use of analytics from the mountains of data social media have built up on us all, such as when you have 2 billion users, trends become very clear. Surely this is superior to blanket advertising, so will be used by everyone to tailor and target the message that voter most wants to hear? Are there clear laws and policing of what data can be harvested, how it is done and used?
Yes, those things are going to matter.
That being said: there's so much money spilling around this time, that I think everyone in the US is going to end up blanketed in adverts for the various candidates.
Aren't YouGov typically showing lower Lab ratings than the others?
YouGov got LAB to within 1% at the Euros - far better than all but one of the other pollsters some of which overstated the party by 10%+
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
Survation is the pollster you want for a general election though.
If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.
From memory, ICM and Populus were the best for the 2010 election.
There is at least one recorded instance of a plane crashing because the copilots were too shy to tell the chief pilot to stop. Tenerife 75 is the obvious one. Labour historically has found it difficult to ditch its underperforming leaders, although I can't recall a time as bad as this for Lab.
There is at least one recorded instance of a plane crashing because the copilots were too shy to tell the chief pilot to stop. Tenerife 75 is the obvious one. Labour historically has found it difficult to ditch its underperforming leaders, although I can't recall a time as bad as this for Lab.
A month or so out from the last election when none of the pollsters put us in first place?
There are two big differences with the poll in 2009 that also had Labour on 18%.
1. Then they were 22% behind the Conservatives. Now only 6% behind.
2. Then they had been in government for 12 years and the economy was collapsing. Now they have been in opposition for 9 years and the government is collapsing.
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
There are two big differences with the poll in 2009 that also had Labour on 18%.
1. Then they were 22% behind the Conservatives. Now only 6% behind.
2. Then they had been in government for 12 years and the economy was collapsing. Now they have been in opposition for 9 years and the government is collapsing.
3. Then Labour were in joint 2nd. Now they are in 4th place.
After he’s being PM for a while, he can claim his natural born citizenship of the USA and run for President...
Has there been a recent time in which the PM of the UK would also qualify to run for President of the USA and the president of the USA be able to qualify for British citizenship and run for office here?
There's never been a time when a British PM could qualify to be elected POTUS because of the requirement to be resident in the United States for fourteen continuous years at the time of taking office[1]. I did some reading, and it would seem that Boris cannot, in fact, resume his former natural-born US citizenship having relinquished it.[2]
Under modern US nationality law Churchill would have been a natural-born US citizen because his mother was an American citizen who resided there long enough for her to pass her citizenship on to overseas-born children. However, under the customary international law and anti-dual citizenship treaties[3] of the time, his mother Jennie Jerome, was deemed to have lost her American citizenship and have become a British subject at the moment she married Lord Randolph.
For the reverse though, interestingly reading the Electoral Commission's guidance there appears to be nothing in British law that makes any sort of residential qualification for standing as an MP if you are a British or Irish citizen.[4] Several US presidents had parents born in what is now the UK or Ireland, and so if modern British and Irish law was in operation at the time would have qualified as British or Irish citizens from birth. Interestingly, the US President who came closest to qualifying as a British citizen by descent, and who would so qualify if he'd been born after 1983, is... Trump!
If it had been the Donald's father who was born in Scotland, not his mother, then by British law in operation in 1946 he would have been a British citizen at birth. However, until 1979 this right only applied to the legitimate oversea-born children of British men. The right was later extended retrospectively to the legitimate overseas born children of British mothers, but only as far back as 1961.[5]
After he’s being PM for a while, he can claim his natural born citizenship of the USA and run for President...
Has there been a recent time in which the PM of the UK would also qualify to run for President of the USA and the president of the USA be able to qualify for British citizenship and run for office here?
[1] Specifically the Constitution says (Art. II Sec. 1. Cls 5) "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Now it doesn't actually say "prior to taking office" so I guess it could be argued it could apply to any continuous period of fourteen years residency, but practically everyone assumes that "prior to taking office" is implied and I doubt very much that the federal courts would ever read it otherwise.
[2] He could go through the process of obtaining an immigrant or other visa to the US. qualifying for permanent residency (Green Card) and naturalizing, but this would be a new, non-natural born citizenship and so he would not qualify to be elected President by virtue of it.
[3] Long since abrogated due the to the US Supreme Court finding that there is no constitutional justification for their restriction of US citizenship rights.
[4] Commonwealth citizens may also stand for Parliament of course, but they do have a qualification of having ILR or similar settled status in the UK. Bryan Gould, who was a New Zealander and never took British citizenship, came closest to becoming PM in modern times by unsuccessfully running for Labour leader in 1992, and of course Arthur Bonar Law was the only - so far - PM born outside the UK, in what was then the British colony of New Brunswick, but lived in a time when the UK and its colonies and dominions shared a common citizenship.
[5] Today all children born overseas to British citizens born or naturalized in the UK, irrespective of gender or marital status of their parent, are British citizens by birth, but are classed as "British citizens by descent" and cannot pass British citizenship on to any of their children born overseas.
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Good grief you should get a Gold Medal for spin .
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Good grief you should get a Gold Medal for spin .
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming rt they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Good grief you should get a Gold Medal for spin .
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Ipsos Mori from 21st to 25th June, the second most recent poll, also had the Tories ahead of Labour albeit with Labour still ahead of the Brexit Party and LDs
There is at least one recorded instance of a plane crashing because the copilots were too shy to tell the chief pilot to stop. Tenerife 75 is the obvious one. Labour historically has found it difficult to ditch its underperforming leaders, although I can't recall a time as bad as this for Lab.
A month or so out from the last election when none of the pollsters put us in first place?
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Cause they are two weeks old?
YouGov has had us on 19% several times since 28th May, in that time every other pollsters has us first with the exception of the most recent Ispos Mori poll that has us 2nd.
Now YouGov has us 1% lower than the figure which saw us first with every other pollster bar one, which doesn't seem like a great shift. If a 19% score with YouGov is good enough for us to be first with most pollsters then it seems likely 18% with YouGov could easily produce the same result.
If you were using a ratio to convert YouGov polls into other pollsters results (say the two week old ones) then it would still come up pretty good for us if you used that on the latest poll.
There is at least one recorded instance of a plane crashing because the copilots were too shy to tell the chief pilot to stop. Tenerife 75 is the obvious one. Labour historically has found it difficult to ditch its underperforming leaders, although I can't recall a time as bad as this for Lab.
A month or so out from the last election when none of the pollsters put us in first place?
which election? 2017GE or 2019EP?
2017GE, although I prefer using GE17, looks classier..
And around April time when or just before the election was called.
Ipsos Mori from 21st to 25th June, the second most recent poll, also had the Tories ahead of Labour albeit with Labour still ahead of the Brexit Party and LDs
I have mentioned them a few times or worded things carefully to make sure I am not lying about its results/existence. Not a great poll for Labour but it does look a lot better than YouGov polls for us.
The Nanos tracking poll in Canada gives Trudeau's Liberals the lead over the Conservative Party of Canada for the first time since February, 35% to 32%.
Didn't YouGov novel seat model "polling" do pretty well at the last GE. It was the traditional poll that didn't do so well.
Have they dropped their seat modelling approach?
I think it involved a sample of ~50,000 so not the sort of thing they would be paid to do on a regular basis. I hope that they will repeat it for the next general election.
One thing very clear in both US and UK politics is that the polling rear view mirror is not especially helpful for determining what happens next. Everything is up for grabs.
One thing very clear in both US and UK politics is that the polling rear view mirror is not especially helpful for determining what happens next. Everything is up for grabs.
Just seen the new poll and labour in fourth place on 18%.
Politics is a mess right now but if a consensus is being established that Corbyn and his associates are not fit to govern it would be a silver lining
However, furious with Hunt this morning over fox hunting that both my wife and I implacably oppose. What a choice before us, Boris who we have opposed from day 1 and now Hunt making voting for him very difficult
A decision will be made this weekend and I will declare who I voted for next week
Just seen the new poll and labour in fourth place on 18%.
Politics is a mess right now but if a consensus is being established that Corbyn and his associates are not fit to govern it would be a silver lining
However, furious with Hunt this morning over fox hunting that both my wife and I implacably oppose. What a choice before us, Boris who we have opposed from day 1 and now Hunt making voting for him very difficult
A decision will be made this weekend and I will declare who I voted for next week
Just seen the new poll and labour in fourth place on 18%.
Politics is a mess right now but if a consensus is being established that Corbyn and his associates are not fit to govern it would be a silver lining
However, furious with Hunt this morning over fox hunting that both my wife and I implacably oppose. What a choice before us, Boris who we have opposed from day 1 and now Hunt making voting for him very difficult
A decision will be made this weekend and I will declare who I voted for next week
The fruitcakes have taken over your party, sir, just as they took over the one I used to support. I ma afraid that all we can hope for now is their quick defeats. The years will be grim until it happens.
Good morning to everyone. And weather-wise, at least here, it is.
On a Thursday my wife and I go out for either lunch or dinner, and today I'm thinking about lunch in a riverside pub garden where swans and ducks swim alongside.
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Cause they are two weeks old?
YouGov has had us on 19% several times since 28th May, in that time every other pollsters has us first with the exception of the most recent Ispos Mori poll that has us 2nd.
Now YouGov has us 1% lower than the figure which saw us first with every other pollster bar one, which doesn't seem like a great shift. If a 19% score with YouGov is good enough for us to be first with most pollsters then it seems likely 18% with YouGov could easily produce the same result.
If you were using a ratio to convert YouGov polls into other pollsters results (say the two week old ones) then it would still come up pretty good for us if you used that on the latest poll.
If the Euros are anything to go by - and it's the last polling line in the sand we have - YouGov seems to over-sample BXP support, while getting the other parties pretty much spot on. What we know for certain is that faced with a non-existent government and a profoundly unpopular Conservative party embracing hard right, English nationalism, the Labour party vote has collapsed. It is only the degree of collapse that is at issue.
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Good grief you should get a Gold Medal for spin .
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
It is far more important to entryists like Jezziah that Corbyn is Labour leader than Labour actually wins elections. Think of it this way: if you had offered the SWP 18% of the vote in 2015 they would have bitten your hands off.
Bang goes the idea Hunt is a more popular choice with the public thsn Boris then.
I also know at least 1 Tory member who is a Remainer and Association Chairman and might have voted for Hunt but is very anti fox hunting, this probably pushes him towards Boris
But where Jeremy Hunt's seat is fox hunting is a hot button issue and the actual Hunt has a lot of support. He might be looking at the odds of getting back to Westminster at all.
Bang goes the idea Hunt is a more popular choice with the public thsn Boris then.
I also know at least 1 Tory member who is a Remainer and Association Chairman and might have voted for Hunt but is very anti fox hunting, this probably pushes him towards Boris
But where Jeremy Hunt's seat is fox hunting is a hot button issue and the actual Hunt has a lot of support. He might be looking at the odds of getting back to Westminster at all.
I commented earlier this morning that Hunts support for foxhunting has lost him our two votes, as my wife and I are implacably opposed to it. He only needs to suggest a dementia tax to put him down as TM2 and in that case I would rather see TM continue in post
Bang goes the idea Hunt is a more popular choice with the public thsn Boris then.
I also know at least 1 Tory member who is a Remainer and Association Chairman and might have voted for Hunt but is very anti fox hunting, this probably pushes him towards Boris
But where Jeremy Hunt's seat is fox hunting is a hot button issue and the actual Hunt has a lot of support. He might be looking at the odds of getting back to Westminster at all.
I commented earlier this morning that Hunts support for foxhunting has lost him our two votes, as my wife and I are implacably opposed to it. He only needs to suggest a dementia tax to put him down as TM2 and in that case I would rather see TM continue in post
It's a better impression of Corbyn's leadership than I thought. Here people still are obsessing about side issues from long ago while a shiny new thread beckons without success.
Can you give me a compelling reason why the YouGov poll that has us in 4th is definitely right and the other polls that have us in 1st are definitely wrong?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Cause they are two weeks old?
YouGov has had us on 19% several times since 28th May, in that time every other pollsters has us first with the exception of the most recent Ispos Mori poll that has us 2nd.
Now YouGov has us 1% lower than the figure which saw us first with every other pollster bar one, which doesn't seem like a great shift. If a 19% score with YouGov is good enough for us to be first with most pollsters then it seems likely 18% with YouGov could easily produce the same result.
If you were using a ratio to convert YouGov polls into other pollsters results (say the two week old ones) then it would still come up pretty good for us if you used that on the latest poll.
If the Euros are anything to go by - and it's the last polling line in the sand we have - YouGov seems to over-sample BXP support, while getting the other parties pretty much spot on. What we know for certain is that faced with a non-existent government and a profoundly unpopular Conservative party embracing hard right, English nationalism, the Labour party vote has collapsed. It is only the degree of collapse that is at issue.
In terms of a European election yes, a general election?
Not so much, although as I pointed out before the right before right next time system doesn't seem to actually work.
Bang goes the idea Hunt is a more popular choice with the public thsn Boris then.
I also know at least 1 Tory member who is a Remainer and Association Chairman and might have voted for Hunt but is very anti fox hunting, this probably pushes him towards Boris
But where Jeremy Hunt's seat is fox hunting is a hot button issue and the actual Hunt has a lot of support. He might be looking at the odds of getting back to Westminster at all.
I commented earlier this morning that Hunts support for foxhunting has lost him our two votes, as my wife and I are implacably opposed to it. He only needs to suggest a dementia tax to put him down as TM2 and in that case I would rather see TM continue in post
That's a bit extreme isn't it Mr G?
No - we abhore fox hunting and cannot support anyone who promotes it, so no votes for Hunt. Indeed my good lady cannot stop saying 'stupid' this morning over Hunts comments
Indeed all our grandchildren would be horrified it they thought we supported fox hunting
YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.
So you accept that YouGov were the best for modelling Labour in the most recent national elections on current evidence.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
You should have read the rest of my post....
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Good grief you should get a Gold Medal for spin .
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
It is far more important to entryists like Jezziah that Corbyn is Labour leader than Labour actually wins elections. Think of it this way: if you had offered the SWP 18% of the vote in 2015 they would have bitten your hands off.
You wanted the likes of Owen Smith to lead the party, intellectual purity is more important to you than winning. Rather than appeal to the voters out there who do want a left wing party you'd rather it appealed to you.
Bang goes the idea Hunt is a more popular choice with the public thsn Boris then.
I also know at least 1 Tory member who is a Remainer and Association Chairman and might have voted for Hunt but is very anti fox hunting, this probably pushes him towards Boris
But where Jeremy Hunt's seat is fox hunting is a hot button issue and the actual Hunt has a lot of support. He might be looking at the odds of getting back to Westminster at all.
I commented earlier this morning that Hunts support for foxhunting has lost him our two votes, as my wife and I are implacably opposed to it. He only needs to suggest a dementia tax to put him down as TM2 and in that case I would rather see TM continue in post
That's a bit extreme isn't it Mr G?
No - we abhore fox hunting and cannot support anyone who promotes it, so no votes for Hunt. Indeed my good lady cannot stop saying 'stupid' this morning over Hunts comments
Indeed all our grandchildren would be horrified it they thought we supported fox hunting
Nothing wrong with foxhunting Big G (and Mrs Big G).
Make sure your votes aren't swayed by so trivial an issue.
I think Harris is a good Democratic candidate. Based on the Barr hearing and the first debate, I think she would really get under Trump's skin.
"President Trump, I spend more than a decade putting criminals like you behind bars." and that kind of thing.
I also think she could have the same impact on black turnout in places like North Carolina that Obama did.
Re the Left of the Democrats. They were complacent in 2016. They didn't really think Trump could win, and therefore they sat at home and grumped. This time around, they will be far from complacent.
Whilst I think this is all true there is also the hypocritical #nevertrumps to consider. People who tended their garments and screamed and voted third party in 2016 who then loudly applauded each and every federal judge appointment the Federalist society, I mean Trump made.
Will they really risk losing their grip on the 3rd branch of government by voting against Trump again?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Biden won't even make it to the Iowa caucuses.
I foresee only half a dozen candidates making it to Iowa: Sanders, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, and perhaps two others (O'Rourke being the most likely tier three candidate to make it - and I'd tip him as the VP pick, assuming either Warren or Harris is the nominee).
My money is on Sanders withdrawing after losing Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I guess we'll see...
Do you anticipate it ending up between warren an Harris, and Harris getting the nomination?
I think that's the most likely scenario.
Still, there are probably many twists and turns to come. It's entirely possible that a tier two or tier three candidate could break out.
If nominee is Harris, Would the Sanders/Warren support get behind Harris, in contrast to how they did not seem energised by Hilary?
I think Harris is a good Democratic candidate. Based on the Barr hearing and the first debate, I think she would really get under Trump's skin.
"President Trump, I spend more than a decade putting criminals like you behind bars." and that kind of thing.
I also think she could have the same impact on black turnout in places like North Carolina that Obama did.
Re the Left of the Democrats. They were complacent in 2016. They didn't really think Trump could win, and therefore they sat at home and grumped. This time around, they will be far from complacent.
Another interesting aspect of this election, two things from 2016. Awareness now of foreign interference in the election, using new media. But also, lesson learnt from Brexit ref, the use of analytics from the mountains of data social media have built up on us all, such as when you have 2 billion users, trends become very clear. Surely this is superior to blanket advertising, so will be used by everyone to tailor and target the message that voter most wants to hear? Are there clear laws and policing of what data can be harvested, how it is done and used?
The Obama campaign in 2012 had a file on every single voter, individually, by name. Some of their media spends were incredibly specific by adverts in states adjoining Florida as their broadcast range edged over into Florida.
Hilary's team decided Obama didn't know what they were doing and used their own system, like chumps.
You wanted the likes of Owen Smith to lead the party, intellectual purity is more important to you than winning. Rather than appeal to the voters out there who do want a left wing party you'd rather it appealed to you.
I'd like to see natural monopolies owned for the collective good rather than private gain. I'd like a big programme of green investment. I'd like to see the goverment unwinding the use of housing as a store of value, and rebalancing the economy (definancialisation, regional revival, more income for labour and less for capital).
But does that mean I want Stalinist scum like Milne and Murray with their hands anywhere near the levers of state? Hell no.
Comments
Although I'm not sure McDonnell would be got rid off, just that Corbyn would probably stand down.
In some ways he feels like a Hilary Clinton mark 2, once you take out the people who are supporting him just to beat Trump and the people who just think he is better than the other bad options you aren't left with much...
Clinton at least had the first woman president thing, which is a terrible reason alone to pick a president but seems more inspiring than anything Biden could offer.
A Biden-Trump election for the democrats would be all about we have to stop Trump, he would drive me the closest to abstaining or going 3rd party in an election (if I was American and had a vote)
It is the Remain campaign of 2016, the Clinton campaign of 2016, stop this terrible thing. The advantage I guess is he has come in and been a bit terrible..
That being said: there's so much money spilling around this time, that I think everyone in the US is going to end up blanketed in adverts for the various candidates.
Pause.
Well, that's that theory buggered...
https://twitter.com/s1deburnsguy/status/1146531949491740678
1. Then they were 22% behind the Conservatives. Now only 6% behind.
2. Then they had been in government for 12 years and the economy was collapsing. Now they have been in opposition for 9 years and the government is collapsing.
You were not claiming that YouGov systematically understated Labour support in general election polling when they had Labour as high as 39% in December 2019. So it rather smacks of desperation that in your capacity as Corbyn's cheerleader you do so now at a point when Labour have lost well over half of the support they were recording a mere 8 months ago.
The EU fence sitting is working out so well !
Under modern US nationality law Churchill would have been a natural-born US citizen because his mother was an American citizen who resided there long enough for her to pass her citizenship on to overseas-born children. However, under the customary international law and anti-dual citizenship treaties[3] of the time, his mother Jennie Jerome, was deemed to have lost her American citizenship and have become a British subject at the moment she married Lord Randolph.
For the reverse though, interestingly reading the Electoral Commission's guidance there appears to be nothing in British law that makes any sort of residential qualification for standing as an MP if you are a British or Irish citizen.[4] Several US presidents had parents born in what is now the UK or Ireland, and so if modern British and Irish law was in operation at the time would have qualified as British or Irish citizens from birth. Interestingly, the US President who came closest to qualifying as a British citizen by descent, and who would so qualify if he'd been born after 1983, is... Trump!
If it had been the Donald's father who was born in Scotland, not his mother, then by British law in operation in 1946 he would have been a British citizen at birth. However, until 1979 this right only applied to the legitimate oversea-born children of British men. The right was later extended retrospectively to the legitimate overseas born children of British mothers, but only as far back as 1961.[5]
(footnotes to follow)
[2] He could go through the process of obtaining an immigrant or other visa to the US. qualifying for permanent residency (Green Card) and naturalizing, but this would be a new, non-natural born citizenship and so he would not qualify to be elected President by virtue of it.
[3] Long since abrogated due the to the US Supreme Court finding that there is no constitutional justification for their restriction of US citizenship rights.
[4] Commonwealth citizens may also stand for Parliament of course, but they do have a qualification of having ILR or similar settled status in the UK. Bryan Gould, who was a New Zealander and never took British citizenship, came closest to becoming PM in modern times by unsuccessfully running for Labour leader in 1992, and of course Arthur Bonar Law was the only - so far - PM born outside the UK, in what was then the British colony of New Brunswick, but lived in a time when the UK and its colonies and dominions shared a common citizenship.
[5] Today all children born overseas to British citizens born or naturalized in the UK, irrespective of gender or marital status of their parent, are British citizens by birth, but are classed as "British citizens by descent" and cannot pass British citizenship on to any of their children born overseas.
I said 'YouGov are the best for modelling Labour in European elections on current evidence.'
If
'If you are going on the best in the previous system, although I would argue that has shown itself to be flawed previously with best pollsters often losing out in the next election.'
So I accept that they were the best in the recent Euro elections (for Labour only, Mori were the best overall) although the evidence seems to indicate that doesn't actually mean they will be the most accurate in the next Euro election.
I've been mentioned the difference between YouGov and other pollsters for a while, I think PB even had a thread on the topic a while back (not the recent David Herdson one)
Admittedly before YouGov had much of a difference I probably didn't mention there was a difference.
As many people pointed out when Corbyn got 40% in the last election, it is winning seats that matters not how much percentage support you get, so being first place with most pollsters now is a much better position than being second by a distance with every pollster like prior to the last election.
I imagine if Corbyn gets a lower percentage but more seats the complaint will be percentage of support is the important thing, maybe we then take that criticism on board and concentrate on percentage of support rather than seats in 2 elections time.
Corbyn is destroying the party , how much more evidence do you need . There will be no miracle recovery . The fence sitting managed at the last election has met the end of the road .
Have they dropped their seat modelling approach?
The only correct answer here is no.
I realise it seems to really anger some people but unless I am given some undeniable proof that YouGov is right and other pollsters are wrong I will assume that any of them could be right.
Unless you personally work for YouGov you have no reason to feel insulted that I think of their work as equal to that of other pollsters.
Edit: Even if you do work for YouGov that isn't an insult.
Now YouGov has us 1% lower than the figure which saw us first with every other pollster bar one, which doesn't seem like a great shift. If a 19% score with YouGov is good enough for us to be first with most pollsters then it seems likely 18% with YouGov could easily produce the same result.
If you were using a ratio to convert YouGov polls into other pollsters results (say the two week old ones) then it would still come up pretty good for us if you used that on the latest poll.
And around April time when or just before the election was called.
https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiYTJhNmM3ZWQtYjc5Mi00NTRmLTgyZWItODFlZDMyNTg5MjZiIiwidCI6IjJmMmY5NDEyLWY5YjktNDE0ZC1iMDBmLTc4NjJhMzk1YjQxOCIsImMiOjN9
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/elizabeth-warren-2020-1396032
The contrast in energy between her campaign and Biden’s is pointed.
Everything is up for grabs.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/451660-poll-45-percent-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-impeached
Just seen the new poll and labour in fourth place on 18%.
Politics is a mess right now but if a consensus is being established that Corbyn and his associates are not fit to govern it would be a silver lining
However, furious with Hunt this morning over fox hunting that both my wife and I implacably oppose. What a choice before us, Boris who we have opposed from day 1 and now Hunt making voting for him very difficult
A decision will be made this weekend and I will declare who I voted for next week
On a Thursday my wife and I go out for either lunch or dinner, and today I'm thinking about lunch in a riverside pub garden where swans and ducks swim alongside.
Not so much, although as I pointed out before the right before right next time system doesn't seem to actually work.
Indeed all our grandchildren would be horrified it they thought we supported fox hunting
Make sure your votes aren't swayed by so trivial an issue.
Will they really risk losing their grip on the 3rd branch of government by voting against Trump again?
Hilary's team decided Obama didn't know what they were doing and used their own system, like chumps.
But does that mean I want Stalinist scum like Milne and Murray with their hands anywhere near the levers of state? Hell no.