And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.
In any event, Corbyn's going nowhere.
I am always very skeptical of these kind of polls. Its giving people the option to vote for whatever they imagine they would like, rather than what is on offer. Labour will no named leader, that will be capturing anything from middle ground types who voted Blair and not overly impressed with May through to Dennis Skinners of this world.
I think it shows that the Labour brand isn't totally destroyed (yet) but thats about it.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
True. Many other posters would rather ignore any data that points to a Clinton victory. I think that's extremely unwise.
Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.
Good move OGH. I don't take any poll all that seriously, but these creatures you call "voodoo polls" are excrescences, very well consistent with Trump's carnival hawking ego(t)ism. I'm afraid they may influence a few people, in this case, Trump's direction. I wonder whether similar numbers might not be put off by them. By banning them here you make a contribution to common sense.
The main issue was having to sort through acres of bilge posted by the psephologically challenged PB morning shift while on one's way to work. Trump might win. But voodoo polling presented as empirical data is unhelpful for those of us who actually consider betting on politics.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I hope all polls get reported, albeit with the caveat of it being a "voodoo poll". If some online, non-standard polls are getting skewed by the Trump faithful, at least you can read into that an element of asymmetric enthusiasm. (With a younger, more tech-savvy support base, I'd actually expect Hillary to be the beneficiary of that asymmetric enthusiasm in these polls....)
And that enthusiasm might yet be what wins it for Trump. These polls shouldn't be ignored. They should be explained.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
except trump does better in lv vs rv. which makes me think they are allowing for that enough
Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.
In any event, Corbyn's going nowhere.
Indeed. Just like the party.
Like Forest. A proud tradition. A string of famous victories to look back on. And going nowhere!
FPT Alistair said "Speedy was talking about success. Carter and Bush 1 were both 1 termers. Sad. Bush 2 had to rely on lawyers to secure the Election for him so laywer by proxy.
"JFK, well, I don't think anyone would want their presidency to end that way.
I have to say Speedy's thesis looks sound"
Speedy actually said "every President since WW2 except Eisenhower and Reagan was a lawyer", which is demonstrably incorrect.
As for his assertion that lawyers make more successful presidents, tricky dicky and Ford as lawyers hardly shine, meaning you have to count both Clinton and Obama's as successful presidencies (debatable) even to get to 50% successful for the lawyers.
On the other side, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (even if cut short), Johnson and Reagan have legitimate claims to successful Presidencies.
Not sure his thesis stands any test.
I may have been less than serious.
Actually I should have added "successful" on my quote.
JKF, Johnson, and the Bush family had to rely on others to elect them.
JFK relied on Mayor Daley of Chicago to deliver Illinois, Johnson had to rely on JFK's murder, Bush 1 had to rely on Reagan, Bush 2 had to rely on his brother delivering Florida, Carter relied on Watergate.
Neither of them won a Presidential election without serious outside help and all of them did major gaffes once in office.
Only Truman was succesful in this and he had to fight an a 3 front war.
Carter almost lost the 76 election because he thought that doing an interview with Playboy will play well with christians.
Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.
In any event, Corbyn's going nowhere.
Indeed. Just like the party.
Like Forest. A proud tradition. A string of famous victories to look back on. And going nowhere!
FPT Alistair said "Speedy was talking about success. Carter and Bush 1 were both 1 termers. Sad. Bush 2 had to rely on lawyers to secure the Election for him so laywer by proxy.
"JFK, well, I don't think anyone would want their presidency to end that way.
I have to say Speedy's thesis looks sound"
Speedy actually said "every President since WW2 except Eisenhower and Reagan was a lawyer", which is demonstrably incorrect.
As for his assertion that lawyers make more successful presidents, tricky dicky and Ford as lawyers hardly shine, meaning you have to count both Clinton and Obama's as successful presidencies (debatable) even to get to 50% successful for the lawyers.
On the other side, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (even if cut short), Johnson and Reagan have legitimate claims to successful Presidencies.
Not sure his thesis stands any test.
I may have been less than serious.
Actually I should have added "successful" on my quote.
JKF, Johnson, and the Bush family had to rely on others to elect them.
JFK relied on Mayor Daley of Chicago to deliver Illinois, Johnson had to rely on JFK's murder, Bush 1 had to rely on Reagan, Bush 2 had to rely on his brother delivering Florida, Carter relied on Watergate.
Neither of them won a Presidential election without serious outside help and all of them did major gaffes once in office.
Only Truman was succesful in this and he had to fight an a 3 front war.
Carter almost lost the 76 election because he thought that doing an interview with Playboy will play well with christians.
The irony is that Carter was probably the most Christian of all recent presidents, even to the extent of being a Sunday School teacher before, during and after his term in the White House.
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
True. Many other posters would rather ignore any data that points to a Clinton victory. I think that's extremely unwise.
A dual national, with US citizenship and a fair bit of family there.... It doesn't feel as if Trump has got the pull to turn out the non-voters ala Brexit. Personal opinion and all that.
If Trump was a less stupid figure - say Huey Long reborn - then, yes, I could see a differential turnout by the non-voting swinging this election.
On topic - what is the punishment for posting Scottish subsamples of voodoo polls?
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Trumpers:
1) plenty of Trumpers are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Trumpers in the many Republican primaries, indeed in many the polls overestimated Trump voters.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
Voodoo or not, 1.6 million is an impressive number of responses
You realise you could write a script to automate responses....
One of the things that came out from the Snowden leaks was that GCHQ has a programme called UNDERPASS for manipulating online polls. It's a safe bet that so do many other similar entities.
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Brexiters:
1) plenty of Brexiters are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Brexiters in the many meetings around the country, indeed in many the polls overestimated UKIP voters before the 2015 election
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
What about the BBC. I really do not want Trump to win but their reaction would be a great consolation prize
Mind you I don't want Clinton either. I watched the debate live but will not be doing that again. It was dreadful
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
True. Many other posters would rather ignore any data that points to a Clinton victory. I think that's extremely unwise.
On topic - what is the punishment for posting Scottish subsamples of voodoo polls?
A bashing of turnips from a Glaswegian hungover from Bucky.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
What about the BBC. I really do not want Trump to win but their reaction would be a great consolation prize
I darent risk watching. My TV cost a lot of money and I dont want it to explode.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning.
Any unnamed leader better than JC. Time for the proverbial donkey with a red rosette to take the stage...
Tells us very little. No guarantee that any leader other than Corbyn or Owen Smith would necessarily do any better, and they could be even worse. We couldn't know until they were presented to the public.
In any event, Corbyn's going nowhere.
Indeed. Just like the party.
You won't hear any argument from me on that point! I can't see how Corbyn is meant to do even as well as Ed Miliband. He's highly likely to perform worse. Ed was an implausible PM for a crucial plurality of the electorate, but at least he wasn't a friend of Hamas. Amongst many other things.
I cannot believe that any significant proportion of those voters who picked Cameron over Miliband are going to choose Corbyn over May - and you would have to think it likely that a significant number of defections amongst Labour's surviving centrist voters will be made in the opposite direction.
All of this may just be wishful thinking on my part, given that I regard the Far Left as a despicable and malign entity which should be vanquished, but... as things stand, I can't see Labour going into an election any time soon and polling any better than they did in 1983, and quite likely they'll do worse. Labour is hopelessly divided, most of its MPs don't think the leader is fit to run a whelk stall (let alone a country) and have said as much on the public record, its leadership has a wide range of unsavoury associations past and present, it suffers a voter repellent stance on open borders, and is widely regarded by voters as a special interest lobby for benefit claimants and unpopular militant unions.
And then there's the policy programme. The half a trillion pounds of extra spending (which John McDonnell's immediate predecessor said on the record would require a doubling of VAT, income tax, council tax and corporation tax to raise.) The land value tax. Unilateralism, which you can be sure Corbyn won't let drop. Going back to the madcap era of Seventies trade union militancy and the Winter of Discontent.
Their entire agenda is, to adapt a phrase, all Hampstead and no Hull. All Cambridge and no Corby. All Brighton and no Bolton.
Labour's high command is only interested in listening to one electorate, that being the party membership. The position of its MPs, who will be forced to recommend to the general public a manifesto and a leader that they think are implausible, is foolish, untenable and absurd. The party deserves a proper mauling at the ballot box, and I see no reason why it shouldn't get one.
FPT Alistair said "Speedy was talking about success. Carter and Bush 1 were both 1 termers. Sad. Bush 2 had to rely on lawyers to secure the Election for him so laywer by proxy.
"JFK, well, I don't think anyone would want their presidency to end that way.
I have to say Speedy's thesis looks sound"
Speedy actually said "every President since WW2 except Eisenhower and Reagan was a lawyer", which is demonstrably incorrect.
As for his assertion that lawyers make more successful presidents, tricky dicky and Ford as lawyers hardly shine, meaning you have to count both Clinton and Obama's as successful presidencies (debatable) even to get to 50% successful for the lawyers.
On the other side, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (even if cut short), Johnson and Reagan have legitimate claims to successful Presidencies.
Not sure his thesis stands any test.
I may have been less than serious.
Actually I should have added "successful" on my quote.
JKF, Johnson, and the Bush family had to rely on others to elect them.
JFK relied on Mayor Daley of Chicago to deliver Illinois, Johnson had to rely on JFK's murder, Bush 1 had to rely on Reagan, Bush 2 had to rely on his brother delivering Florida, Carter relied on Watergate.
Neither of them won a Presidential election without serious outside help and all of them did major gaffes once in office.
Only Truman was succesful in this and he had to fight an a 3 front war.
Carter almost lost the 76 election because he thought that doing an interview with Playboy will play well with christians.
The irony is that Carter was probably the most Christian of all recent presidents, even to the extent of being a Sunday School teacher before, during and after his term in the White House.
I know, and he talked about infidelity on Playboy in the 1976 election, evangelicals hit the roof and he almost lost because he relied on southern evangelicals to win.
Reagan creamed him in 1980 because he stole Carter's base.
But Trump doesn't even appear to be as competent as a B-list Actor to successfully steal the democrats base.
Voodoo or not, 1.6 million is an impressive number of responses
You realise you could write a script to automate responses....
One of the things that came out from the Snowden leaks was that GCHQ has a programme called UNDERPASS for manipulating online polls. It's a safe bet that so do many other similar entities.
The last line is obvious but online polling (I think you mean voodoo online polling) could just as easily be manipulated the other way - and Putin might prefer to do that to scare trtmp supporters into voting and make democrats complacent
All it really tells us is that Trump has a rather higher number of very enthusiastic supporters tban Clinton.
What we dont know is whether the scientific polls are much more accurate. Like brexit this vote will cut across normal voting patterns in both who people vote for or whether they vote, making baselining samples very difficult.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
True. Many other posters would rather ignore any data that points to a Clinton victory. I think that's extremely unwise.
A dual national, with US citizenship and a fair bit of family there.... It doesn't feel as if Trump has got the pull to turn out the non-voters ala Brexit. Personal opinion and all that.
If Trump was a less stupid figure - say Huey Long reborn - then, yes, I could see a differential turnout by the non-voting swinging this election.
On topic - what is the punishment for posting Scottish subsamples of voodoo polls?</blockquot the presidency is a lot more based on personal appeal than politicies. its close because of low scores for both, but trumps favourables are stupidly low and he is doing everything he can do reduce them more.
brexit was very different. it was more on an idea, and boris (prob the face of it) had high likeables.
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Brexiters:
1) plenty of Brexiters are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Brexiters in the many meetings around the country, indeed in many the polls overestimated UKIP voters before the 2015 election
fixed that for you
True enough.
Voodoo polls in the papers did go strongly for Leave and in 2015 UKIP did underperform their polls.
You miss out the fact that many polls did predict a vote for Leave. It seems a common delusion on here that the polling did not pick up Leave voters. It did. Indeed I was one of many pointing out that the discrepency between polling and betting made Leave the value bet.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning.
Thats what happens when you rub peoples noses in diversity.
The desire for Schadenfreude er...trumps other considerations.
Especially when you dont actually get to vote and can just laugh at their impotent rage while not feeling guilty that you might have voted for a nutter.
Now, back to excavating tbe Anderson Shelter in the back garden.......
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
No, but we get to bet on it.
So when people spout self evident crap like "Trump will pivot to the centre after the Primaries", or, "Trump will never get the nomination" they should be called on it. Money is at stake.
Voodoo or not, 1.6 million is an impressive number of responses
You realise you could write a script to automate responses....
One of the things that came out from the Snowden leaks was that GCHQ has a programme called UNDERPASS for manipulating online polls. It's a safe bet that so do many other similar entities.
I remember...it kinda of made me chuckle as the level of expertise to manipulate online polls is that of Donald Trump's 10 year old son. On wait, it all makes sense now....
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Trumpers:
1) plenty of Trumpers are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Trumpers in the many Republican primaries, indeed in many the polls overestimated Trump voters.
No2. is why I say it largerly cancells out, because even if they are shy Trump voters, Trump voters are the least likely to vote because they are not registered in order to vote anyway.
And Trump does zero effort to register them, and he doesn't have forever.
Democrats even have Taco Trucks that go around to register their voters.
Meanwhile Trump is spinning his wheels in the ditch fighting Miss Universe and losing debates.
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Brexiters:
1) plenty of Brexiters are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Brexiters in the many meetings around the country, indeed in many the polls overestimated UKIP voters before the 2015 election
fixed that for you
True enough.
Voodoo polls in the papers did go strongly for Leave and in 2015 UKIP did underperform their polls.
You miss out the fact that many polls did predict a vote for Leave. It seems a common delusion on here that the polling did not pick up Leave voters. It did. Indeed I was one of many pointing out that the discrepency between polling and betting made Leave the value bet.
The problem is that the polls are in it could go either way territory.
A points win for either in debates wont change things. Each side sees what they want to see.
Im also wary of post debate polls - even the proper ones. They tend to end up being judgements on the debate not intentions of voting - as the Libdems discovered in 2010 to their bitter disappointment.
On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.
It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
Congress has a Republican majority, and any scenario where Trump wins, that is likely to increase.
So a Trump restrained by a Democratic Congrees is not going to happen, though a Clinton Presidency restrained by a Republican Congress is likely.
Worth noting that any Trump Trade war with the EU will also be against us as for at least the first two years of a Trump presidency we will be in the EU. That delay in A50 may cost us dearly...
I did not say it was likely to happen, just that if it did happen it would be the best result for the UK. Trump will not be launching any trade wars against the EU because he will be too bust launching them against China and Mexico, though as far as the UK is concerned he is more likely to do a free trade deal with the UK without sending us to the back of the queue behind the EU as Hillary would, though as you suggest a GOP Congress would hopefully press the UK's case given a number of Republican Congressmen backed Brexit
''Especially when you dont actually get to vote and can just laugh at their impotent rage while not feeling guilty that you might have voted for a nutter. ''
Given the US is a giant super tanker of a country its tough to turn around, what would Trump do in four years....REALLY?? Not much, lets face it. Most Presidents run out of momentum after 18 months.
And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Still a couple of weeks and the Trump camp is ready to spend on an advertising blitz to get its voters to the polls
Labour Peer and former Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti 'set to join Jeremy Corbyn's team as shadow attorney general'
Others expected to join the shadow cabinet include Keir Starmer, former shadow housing minister John Healey and former shadow Wales secretary Nia Griffith.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning.
In the EU Ref we did a couple of Nojam polls on PB, just to see who is accurate the online polls or the phone polls about the Tory vote. I still remember the result was 70-30 for Leave and I declared the online polls the winner.
I would like to repeat that with a poll about Trump and Hillary, to actually test the theory of shy Trump votes on PB.
I say by the statements that it's about 66-33 for Hillary on PB but what is their real choice in an anonymous poll ?
And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Still a couple of weeks and the Trump camp is ready to spend on an advertising blitz to get its voters to the polls
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning.
Thats what happens when you rub peoples noses in diversity.
The desire for Schadenfreude er...trumps other considerations.
Especially when you dont actually get to vote and can just laugh at their impotent rage while not feeling guilty that you might have voted for a nutter.
Now, back to excavating tbe Anderson Shelter in the back garden.......
Given that the United States is a nation built entirely on immigration, where 30+% of the population is non-white, I think you might have spent too long with the PB Kippers. (But I enjoyed the joke about the shelter!)
Fascinating delve into FiveThirtyEight's several banned polling companies. The allegation (and also here) is that some companies aren't just carrying out voodoo polls but are fabricating their data. Apparently when humans invent spurious data they are bad at randomising it, making it detectable by statistical analysis.
''Especially when you dont actually get to vote and can just laugh at their impotent rage while not feeling guilty that you might have voted for a nutter. ''
Given the US is a giant super tanker of a country its tough to turn around, what would Trump do in four years....REALLY?? Not much, lets face it. Most Presidents run out of momentum after 18 months.
Do you think Corbyn will run out of Momentum after 18 months?
And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Still a couple of weeks and the Trump camp is ready to spend on an advertising blitz to get its voters to the polls
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Still a couple of weeks and the Trump camp is ready to spend on an advertising blitz to get its voters to the polls
looks like hispanics are rushing to register a vote
too bad they live in mainly safe states, although Nevada is important the polling could be understating Hispanics there if they only registred in the last few weeks or so.
Edit: I see Florida is at number 14, remember Obama was 3% behind on the eve of polling and won.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
except trump does better in lv vs rv. which makes me think they are allowing for that enough
Leave did better amongst those certain to vote too but you have to make sure they do actually get to the polls and a few of those certain to vote in both EU ref and the US presidential election may not have voted at the last election
''The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning. ''
I don;t think many on here really support Trump, or like him. Whether he'll win is a another matter, however.
Agreed.
But there is a part of me that would think it utterly hilarious if Alf Garnet and Hattie Harman were running for Mayor of London and Alf won, because it would so enrage the do gooders, self important and self righteous.
There is also a part of me that supported Wimbledon the jumped up amateurs in the cup final against Liverpool the pros with unlimited expertise and resources even though Wimbledon wernt much better than a bunch of thugs because they were the unfashionable underdog who many despised.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
With 20% voting by post two or three weeks beforehand you cannot judge the pollsters by final polls anymore. You've got to look at the whole period from when voting actually started and in the final 3 weeks there wee more LEAVE lead polls than REMAIN ones.
On topic: Good editorial move given it's a betting site. @foxinsoxuk I'm amazed at the globalising Brexit/Trump axis on here. Trump is talking about protectionism and a trade war. He couldn't have been clearer in the debate. I can't think of a worse international environment to launch a globalising Brexit than a Trump presidency.
It would be a trade war against China and Mexico, not the UK and of course he has little time for the EU either. However I did say a Trump win and a Democratic Congress to tone down the prospect of a full-scale trade war
Congress has a Republican majority, and any scenario where Trump wins, that is likely to increase.
So a Trump restrained by a Democratic Congrees is not going to happen, though a Clinton Presidency restrained by a Republican Congress is likely.
Worth noting that any Trump Trade war with the EU will also be against us as for at least the first two years of a Trump presidency we will be in the EU. That delay in A50 may cost us dearly...
I did not say it was likely to happen, just that if it did happen it would be the best result for the UK. Trump will not be launching any trade wars against the EU because he will be too bust launching them against China and Mexico, though as far as the UK is concerned he is more likely to do a free trade deal with the UK without sending us to the back of the queue behind the EU as Hillary would, though as you suggest a GOP Congress would hopefully press the UK's case given a number of Republican Congressmen backed Brexit
Trump cannot put us in the front of the queue while we are in the EU, even in the unlikely event of him wanting to do so.
The EU balance of trade with the USA is about $150 billion per year in manufactured goods in favour of the EU, with a modest positive balance in services too.
Trump tarriffs to protect rustbelt industries are going to hit us too. Not least because for at least the first two years of a Trump Presidency we are going to be in the EU.
Things are getting very heated here for an election that none of us get to vote in.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning.
Given that both candidates are unfit to be President, it's no wonder that the one who will provide more entertainment is getting some support.
And there is probably time to register them - Maybe Trump is aiming for a massive registration boost closer to the deadline rather than a gradual effort. His tactic on advertising seems to be to wait till closer to the election. Shock and Awe?!
Could well be so Clinton camp has little chance to respond
Except the Clinton campaign has been pretty active already in registering voters.
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
Still a couple of weeks and the Trump camp is ready to spend on an advertising blitz to get its voters to the polls
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
I'm actually looking into it as well.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
In addition there is other evidence against shy Brexiters:
1) plenty of Brexiters are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Brexiters in the many meetings around the country, indeed in many the polls overestimated UKIP voters before the 2015 election
fixed that for you
True enough.
Voodoo polls in the papers did go strongly for Leave and in 2015 UKIP did underperform their polls.
You miss out the fact that many polls did predict a vote for Leave. It seems a common delusion on here that the polling did not pick up Leave voters. It did. Indeed I was one of many pointing out that the discrepency between polling and betting made Leave the value bet.
Yes. I remember one in the Independent when I was out with my family on a Friday night. My wife and son wondered why I was so distracted - I said "leave is going to win".
I remember...it kinda of made me chuckle as the level of expertise to manipulate online polls is that of Donald Trump's 10 year old son. On wait, it all makes sense now....
I think that it is probably a bit more sophisticated than hammering the poll and defeating captchas. I would expect them to be able to spoof the originating addresses and maybe also defeat other types of verification. Underpass was just one out of dozens of tools.
''I'd guess that his yank colleagues were feigning gloom at the prospect of a Trump presidency to avoid awkwardness with a Limey pinko. ''
Many a true word said in Jest. There's an important point here. Some posters would rather completely ignore the possibility of a 'shy' Trump vote - I think that's extremely unwise.
the shy trump votes arent the white working class. they are the white educated class. what does he offer them clinton doesnt? esp with obama helping them?
It is not the 'shy' voters but their likelihood to vote which is key and polls of likely voters may underestimate the white working class votes for Trump as EU ref polls did for Leave
Except they didn't. Most polls in the run-up to the referendum had small leads for Leave. It's true that Populus had a schocker though.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
With 20% voting by post two or three weeks beforehand you cannot judge the pollsters by final polls anymore. You've got to look at the whole period from when voting actually started and in the final 3 weeks there wee more LEAVE lead polls than REMAIN ones.
Yes. Leave were at their zenith when postal voting was at its peak.
''The support from ostensibly sane and intelligent posters on here for Trump really is stunning. ''
I don;t think many on here really support Trump, or like him. Whether he'll win is a another matter, however.
Agreed.
But there is a part of me that would think it utterly hilarious if Alf Garnet and Hattie Harman were running for Mayor of London and Alf won, because it would so enrage the do gooders, self important and self righteous.
There is also a part of me that supported Wimbledon the jumped up amateurs in the cup final against Liverpool the pros with unlimited expertise and resources even though Wimbledon wernt much better than a bunch of thugs because they were the unfashionable underdog who many despised.
This US election presses those buttons.
You do realise this is an election for the most powerful person in the world?
You want Trump to win, nevermind this bullshit smokescreen about "do gooders".
Comments
It seems that there are just a couple more weeks to register in most states.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/781140652574867456
The weirdest thing I have ever read on this site is actually the header of the preceding thread.
I think it shows that the Labour brand isn't totally destroyed (yet) but thats about it.
Depends how many were done using a bot.
Five thirty eight have an article today on whether the polls are wrong and have looked at the prospect of a "shy Trump" effect, concluding it is unlikely.
And that enthusiasm might yet be what wins it for Trump. These polls shouldn't be ignored. They should be explained.
Quattrofair trade ethnically sourced donkey manure powered motorized push bike made with militant unionized labour force.JKF, Johnson, and the Bush family had to rely on others to elect them.
JFK relied on Mayor Daley of Chicago to deliver Illinois, Johnson had to rely on JFK's murder, Bush 1 had to rely on Reagan, Bush 2 had to rely on his brother delivering Florida, Carter relied on Watergate.
Neither of them won a Presidential election without serious outside help and all of them did major gaffes once in office.
Only Truman was succesful in this and he had to fight an a 3 front war.
Carter almost lost the 76 election because he thought that doing an interview with Playboy will play well with christians.
Cliffs:- Donald and Clinton are both lying about his finances.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-bUEJx9_04
also, clinton has 4 times as many offices in all the swing states compared to trump. he is unlikely to beat her on ground game
Alas vote Berlusconi with a clothespeg on your nose and your fingers crossed behind your back.
There is evidence of a shy Trump vote, a small one of about 2-4% based on the difference of online and phone polls.
But it's cancelled by the fact that Trump voters are a group least likely to vote or be registered, poor white men, and even if their enthousiasm to vote is high there is zero evidence of a mass wave of registration.
With Brexit 3 million people rushed to register, the electorate expanded by about 7%.
The reason why Obama flipped Virginia and N.Carolina in 2008 was that he drove black turnout to above 80%, almost 20% more than whites, but democrats had built an entire machine to register them and turn them out to vote for decades.
Trump doesn't look interested in registering his voters to vote like democrats do with their voters.
That's just another reason to think why Trump will lose, apart of course from his public character, and what appears to be in public the most stupid man ever (he beats George W. Bush on public acts of stupidity by miles).
If Trump was a less stupid figure - say Huey Long reborn - then, yes, I could see a differential turnout by the non-voting swinging this election.
On topic - what is the punishment for posting Scottish subsamples of voodoo polls?
1) plenty of Trumpers are not shy of voting in voodoo polls.
2) there was no evidence of shy Trumpers in the many Republican primaries, indeed in many the polls overestimated Trump voters.
If Trump does win there wont be enough popcorn in the world. The Grauniad will be a keep forever collectors item (assuming any copies last the day witbout spontaneously combusting).
A Russian group was attempting to interfere with news and political party websites during the general election in 2015. That's the same Fancy Bears group that has recently leaked the WADA records.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russian-hackers-tried-to-disrupt-uk-general-election-security-sources-say-a7329406.html
Online polling simply can't be trusted.
The Herald poll was nationwide , not just Jocksville.
Mind you I don't want Clinton either. I watched the debate live but will not be doing that again. It was dreadful
I cannot believe that any significant proportion of those voters who picked Cameron over Miliband are going to choose Corbyn over May - and you would have to think it likely that a significant number of defections amongst Labour's surviving centrist voters will be made in the opposite direction.
All of this may just be wishful thinking on my part, given that I regard the Far Left as a despicable and malign entity which should be vanquished, but... as things stand, I can't see Labour going into an election any time soon and polling any better than they did in 1983, and quite likely they'll do worse. Labour is hopelessly divided, most of its MPs don't think the leader is fit to run a whelk stall (let alone a country) and have said as much on the public record, its leadership has a wide range of unsavoury associations past and present, it suffers a voter repellent stance on open borders, and is widely regarded by voters as a special interest lobby for benefit claimants and unpopular militant unions.
And then there's the policy programme. The half a trillion pounds of extra spending (which John McDonnell's immediate predecessor said on the record would require a doubling of VAT, income tax, council tax and corporation tax to raise.) The land value tax. Unilateralism, which you can be sure Corbyn won't let drop. Going back to the madcap era of Seventies trade union militancy and the Winter of Discontent.
Their entire agenda is, to adapt a phrase, all Hampstead and no Hull. All Cambridge and no Corby. All Brighton and no Bolton.
Labour's high command is only interested in listening to one electorate, that being the party membership. The position of its MPs, who will be forced to recommend to the general public a manifesto and a leader that they think are implausible, is foolish, untenable and absurd. The party deserves a proper mauling at the ballot box, and I see no reason why it shouldn't get one.
Reagan creamed him in 1980 because he stole Carter's base.
But Trump doesn't even appear to be as competent as a B-list Actor to successfully steal the democrats base.
All it really tells us is that Trump has a rather higher number of very enthusiastic supporters tban Clinton.
What we dont know is whether the scientific polls are much more accurate. Like brexit this vote will cut across normal voting patterns in both who people vote for or whether they vote, making baselining samples very difficult.
Voodoo polls in the papers did go strongly for Leave and in 2015 UKIP did underperform their polls.
You miss out the fact that many polls did predict a vote for Leave. It seems a common delusion on here that the polling did not pick up Leave voters. It did. Indeed I was one of many pointing out that the discrepency between polling and betting made Leave the value bet.
The desire for Schadenfreude er...trumps other considerations.
Especially when you dont actually get to vote and can just laugh at their impotent rage while not feeling guilty that you might have voted for a nutter.
Now, back to excavating tbe Anderson Shelter in the back garden.......
So when people spout self evident crap like "Trump will pivot to the centre after the Primaries", or, "Trump will never get the nomination" they should be called on it. Money is at stake.
I don;t think many on here really support Trump, or like him. Whether he'll win is a another matter, however.
And Trump does zero effort to register them, and he doesn't have forever.
Democrats even have Taco Trucks that go around to register their voters.
Meanwhile Trump is spinning his wheels in the ditch fighting Miss Universe and losing debates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37500878
A points win for either in debates wont change things. Each side sees what they want to see.
Im also wary of post debate polls - even the proper ones. They tend to end up being judgements on the debate not intentions of voting - as the Libdems discovered in 2010 to their bitter disappointment.
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/781215486692524032
If Trump ditches Conway he's a fucking idiot.
Given the US is a giant super tanker of a country its tough to turn around, what would Trump do in four years....REALLY?? Not much, lets face it. Most Presidents run out of momentum after 18 months.
The results are in.
55% agree it's a good idea
42% approve of the policy
10% didn't know but are happy to go with OGH if the poll is illustrated in bar chart form.
Given it's a tie, we're sending it to a public vote - the membership appoint the PB leaders here too I understand ... democracy must have its say.
Others expected to join the shadow cabinet include Keir Starmer, former shadow housing minister John Healey and former shadow Wales secretary Nia Griffith.
I still remember the result was 70-30 for Leave and I declared the online polls the winner.
I would like to repeat that with a poll about Trump and Hillary, to actually test the theory of shy Trump votes on PB.
I say by the statements that it's about 66-33 for Hillary on PB but what is their real choice in an anonymous poll ?
Can someone make a poll on PB so we can test it ?
looks like hispanics are rushing to register a vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
Edit: I see Florida is at number 14, remember Obama was 3% behind on the eve of polling and won.
But there is a part of me that would think it utterly hilarious if Alf Garnet and Hattie Harman were running for Mayor of London and Alf won, because it would so enrage the do gooders, self important and self righteous.
There is also a part of me that supported Wimbledon the jumped up amateurs in the cup final against Liverpool the pros with unlimited expertise and resources even though Wimbledon wernt much better than a bunch of thugs because they were the unfashionable underdog who many despised.
This US election presses those buttons.
The EU balance of trade with the USA is about $150 billion per year in manufactured goods in favour of the EU, with a modest positive balance in services too.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
Trump tarriffs to protect rustbelt industries are going to hit us too. Not least because for at least the first two years of a Trump Presidency we are going to be in the EU.
You want Trump to win, nevermind this bullshit smokescreen about "do gooders".