Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this US YouGov polling is correct then the chances of a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If this US YouGov polling is correct then the chances of a President Trump must be negligible
YouGov US Polling on reaction to President Trump https://t.co/r522Q3GrQV pic.twitter.com/op4Q1IGQG5
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I love visiting America.
Slightly off topic, can't find a clear current status on Google over how Swiss efforts to restrict free-movement are going, just snippets that don't give a full picture:
https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-eu-brussels/en/home/key-issues/free-movement-persons.html
Other than the above, which doesn't seem totally up to date, I've seen something about a 2017 deadline on the current bilateral deals, and something about EU early in 2015 not wanting to enter negotiation on free-movement.
Are Switzerland likely to withdraw from EFTA and renegotiate static trade deals?
Any relevance to the options Britain are likely to have available post any Brexit?
The lady doth protest too much.
Which is why it is increasingly likely that Bloomberg will run.
(As an aside, I was talking to an American friend last week who opined that - if Bloomberg enters the race - that he won't do debates with Hillary and Trump, reckoning that the two of them ripping each other to pieces will be all the publicity he needs.)
How many of the 49% will take another look at him?
My book hopes that a large number will - bright bright green on Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2u8OVK4qD4
My gut says that the EU will make some small concessions, and then the Swiss government will have a single referendum on the treaty.
Effect on post-Brexit negotiations? Personally, I am all in favour of the free movement of labour. However, I also believe that governments should be allowed to discriminate against non-citizens; so I don't see any argument for benefits to be paid to non-citizens. It would also not be unreasonable for non-tax paying immigrants to have to buy NHS Health Insurance. (Although I realise that bilateral agreements between countries will have an effect here.)
In 2008, Obama spent $750m. In 2012, it was $730m.
Bloomberg will spend $1bn of his own money. (Unlike Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg is actually rich.) He will raise another $1bn from a collection of business friendly Republicans and Democrats. He will likely outspend the combined Hillary and Trump campaigns, perhaps by 50%.
A lawyer who is representing 168 victims of Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall said they will feel let down by the Dame Janet Smith report and will see it as "an expensive whitewash".
"It is unfortunate that Dame Janet had no power to compel senior managers to give evidence, giving the impression that the whole picture of who knew what has not been revealed. With 117 witnesses giving evidence of concerns and rumours, it's implausible to suggest that this did not reach the upper echelons of the BBC."
sounds about right
I would anticipate an announcement - if he's going to run - by mid-March; i.e. the point at which we know that the Donald is the Republican nominee.
Was loving everything about this decision as he looked very impressive a couple of week ago, until I found out he is reading Politics at uni...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
In an actual contest, both sides would have plenty of mud to throw at each other, and it's hard to say which would be more damaged.
BBC
Greece recalls ambassador from Austria amid sharp EU divisions over migrant crisis https://t.co/Or10Q1syic
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
In a Clinton v Trump battle, I predict Trump performing significantly better than Romney with non-college-educated whites, Clinton performing a fair bit better than Obama 2012 with Hispanics, Clinton doing a bit worse than Obama 2012 with blacks, college-educated whites and Asians about the same as 2012.
All in all, it produces a ridiculously tight simulation of Clinton having 274 Electoral College votes to Trump's 264 (49.2% to 49.0% in the popular vote). Trump would become the first Republican since the 1980s to win Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (plus would also re-gain Ohio, Iowa and New Hampshire), while Clinton would just scrape the overall win by clinging onto Virginia and Florida by 0.5% in each state.
In short, how far to continue to back him.
Some of the laughable jokers on this site think that swanning around as a leader is easy.
I know I'm tempting fate, but I'm also surprised how civilised the debate has been in the Tory party, so far.
Re ID cards: over my dead body. @MorrisDancer: they are indeed a rancid idea.
I wouldn't be surprised if the government tried to introduce them here via the EU under some Justice/Home Affairs Directive. They are of course widespread in Continental Europe and ever more integration is likely to allow those in charge to spread them to here on the grounds of security or some such.
Re @WeeJonnie's concern re trial by jury, I raised this point several times several threads ago. As legal systems become more integrated, particularly under the Justice heading, I do have a very considerable worry that many aspects of our criminal law system will be chipped away and lost
You can either have openness, or you can have security. Trying to pretend you can have both is a dangerous fantasy.
The sad thing is many of these people probably do know their history, they do know what the South was, and yet they still support it over the union.
Race relations in the US appear to be going sharply backwards.
The only major swing states with a lower-than-average WWC population are Florida and Virginia.
In particular, even if the Hispanics swing more heavily to the Democrats, the problem is they are quite "inefficiently distributed" in terms of the Electoral College: two of the biggest Hispanic populations are in California and Texas, but that's no good in terms of getting extra Electoral College votes since the former is already a lock for the Democrats and the latter is safe for the Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/poll-hispanics-2016-trump-219763
.@JeremyCorbyn says @David_Cameron is jealous of his “Holloway Road” style https://t.co/ZmeYA3GHtu
Bwahaha
Of more immediate interest, the Irish GE is tomorrow. There has been a flurry of opinion polls in the last few days, showing a fairly consistent picture and one which hasn't changed very much over the past few weeks. There's precious little sign of Labour crawling back up to the point at which they might start winning a reasonable number of seats, and not much enthusiasm for Fine Gael's Cameron-like 'Don't wreck the recovery' message either.
Looking at the polls and seat forecasts, I'm expecting seat totals along these lines (79 needed for a majority):
Fine Gael 57, Fianna Fáil 36, Sinn Féin 23, Labour 6, Other/Indies 36
The bookies have an FG/FF coalition as odds-on favourite because that's the only plausible-looking two-party combination with enough seats for a majority, but I continue to think this ignores the political reality. Neither party wants to work with the other, and neither wants Sinn Féin to become the official opposition and thus be in pole position to hoover up anti-government sentiment. It doesn't look at though Labour has much of a chance of getting enough seats to be a coalition partner for FG. So FG minority, with implicit FF support but not in a coalition, looks to me the most likely option still.
I've just backed the following:
FG Minority 6/1 Ladbrokes
FG over 52.5 5/6 Ladbrokes
Lab under 8.5 5/6 Paddy
Two other forecasts here:
http://www.irishelectionstats.com/
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ivan-yates/my-predictions-who-will-make-it-to-the-dil-and-whose-heads-will-roll-34484333.html
DYOR etc!