Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you shouldn’t rely on the BREXIT experience as a pointer t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why you shouldn’t rely on the BREXIT experience as a pointer to a Trump victory
Amazon
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Take, for example, the State of Texas - hugely important in terms of its size. On Saturday Ipsos gave the Republicans a lead of 14%, whereas just one day later, YouGov had the GOP lead down to a tiny, moe figure of 2%.
Say this very quietly, but one could very easily come to the conclusion that one or other or perhaps both haven't got a clue about the true picture.
Oh well, we'll know for sure in a little over two weeks' time.
On the subject of the actual election, with so much variance in the polling it could be anything between a Clinton landslide and a big Trump win. Not bet much on this, but the party's booked and the popcorn's ordered for Nov 8th!
Overall I don't think the polls in this race are particularly divergent, apart from the LA Times tracker, which is experimental, and Rasmussen, which is doing exactly what we'd expect Rasmussen to do.
The part that's hard to call is what will happen down-ballot, because there's no recent precedent for a nominee and the party that nominated them to basically disown each other.
There was a good case for saying noone had a scooby in the Brexit polling because there was much less precedent, and different methodologies were telling contradictory stories. But in this case, there's plenty of evidence and it's reasonably consistent. Hillary is heading for a comfortable win, as per multiple scoobies.
Down-ballot, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
The options will be 'The Negotiated EU deal' or 'No Deal' (aka chaotic Brexit) - I can imagine Sturgeon voting it down, the better to further independence - irrespective of the contents of the deal......why would May want to risk the fortunes of the other 92% of the UK on the whims of a party created to bring about its destruction?
Also are they going to decide on the day that the only question that really matters to them is who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice, and turn out for Trump at the last minute whilst holding their nose with both hands and gritting their teeth.
So imagine the first $10,000 is tax free, the next $40,000 at 20%, and then anything above is at 50%.
If you are the sole earner, with a wife and three kids, then your first $50,000 is tax free, and your next $200,000 is at 20%.
It means that - for middle class families - it is enormously economically advantageous to have more children.
France is, on the other hand, much less generous to those without jobs who have children. The result is that France is the only country on the planet where college educated women have more children than those without secondary education, and overall their birth rate is around replacement level. (And is actually about 10% higher than the US at 2.1 vs 1.9.)
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-north-carolina-20161023-snap-story.html
I agree that there'd be a whinefest if no nominee was ratified for four years but if they could establish the convention in the public mind, then with the right PR, there'd be a good chance that the blame would fall on Hillary for trying to 'rig' the system.
Indeed, I have read that this is an unusual experiment which might help to ascertain if wall to wall advertising actually works; there is such a discrepancy in some of the swing states that its effectiveness should be apparent (although difficult to distinguish from other factors of course). Probably the best single thing for US democracy to come out of this borderline tragic contest would be a conclusion that these hundreds of millions that so corrupt their system achieve very little.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-florida-polling-nosedive-230214
Guaranteed.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302436-obama-in-nevada-heck-no-to-trump-joe-heck
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/790421684826304512
Anything that builds on the pretext of grievance for a second referendum.
The political issue is the " imagined communities " concept. The UK redefined it's self via the Leave vote and Scotland defined itsself differently again against the Leave vote. These are very long term processes and political institutions like the union lag even further behind. Nor is the process irreversible. But the figures were stark. Sturgeon has an open goal.
Expect tactical leaks to the press.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/early-voting-the-election_b_12614284.html?section=us_politics
Using that phrase in public has destroyed careers already.
Yes, the views of the devolved administrations should be listened to, as should the views of the people who voted remain. But the government has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and reflect the will of the country. It's not obvious to me how such a consensus could be built.
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
I look forward to constructive engagement from Remainers beyond 'we told you so' and 'the worst is yet to come'.....
Video - http://video.foxnews.com/v/5182144550001/judith-miller-women-are-responding-to-trump-by-voting-early/?#sp=show-clips
There was also an email yesterday outlining their strategy to influence polling. DYOR.
But the loss of the banks ad financial institutions is not guaranteed after Brexit. If it's handled badly, yes. However the UK does have some advantages (which is why they're here at the moment), and it may be possible that those advantages offset the loss of EU status. Or we might be able to buy them off, although that may still be at a cost to income.
I doubt these institutions are philosophically pro-EU. They will not, as a whole, be firm believers in the project. The EU may give them certain advantages, but those will be judged on a financial basis, not an ideological one. If we can show them that they will be able to operate more profitably by remaining in the UK, the vast majority will stay.
However: the EU will be eyeing them covetously, and will want to attract them. It's therefore massively important for the government to be flirting with them immediately. Although I'm not sure I want to see pictures of May, Hammond, Fox, Boris or Davis revealing a bit of ankle and fluttering their eyelashes. Best to keep it behind closed doors ...
Addendum:
Following yesterday's conversation on here:
For the terminally stupid, this is not a pro-remain or pro-EU post.
The decision on how to vote was a finely balanced one for many people. People of intelligence and goodwill voted, based on what was important to them and probably, many of them, with a heavy heart and no great enthusiasm. Just because someone voted differently does not make them evil nor does it mean that they are forbidden from ever commenting on the subject again or to blame for everything that happens.
Legitimate disagreement without ad hominem insults is - or should be - the lifeblood of democracy and a civilised society. It might be good if we all remembered that.
Clinton 307 .. Trump 181 .. Toss-Up 50
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-race
It's akin to all the papers here ignoring MPs expenses. Two very senior DNC directors have been forced out so far another couple have been arrested for assault at rallies where they deliberately tried to incite violence.
I feel this is just boiling away trust in media as word spreads despite the MSM. Fox are now covering it and embarrassing others to at least nod to it.
We are 4 months on but no wiser as to what "Brexit means Brexit" means.
As it happens, I doubt that the negotiations are finessable. Theresa May is embarking on what is probably a fool's errand.
However, it does not seem to have stopped low skilled migration to France, both from EU and non-EU countries.
Why are you only allowed to react to what the government says?
While I know most on here are decades past their teenage years, a lot of the Remoaner(*) posting comes across as a teenage strop.....
(*) Remoaner - supporter of Remain having great difficulty adjusting to the outcome of the referendum. Can make Scot Nats appear witty and light hearted by comparison.
Because it's an election not a referendum, with another electorate, in another country?
F1: entertaining race. Mildly miffed at the VSC's timing which screwed over Ricciardo. He might've got 2nd but for that. Flat overall in betting terms.
Anyway, I'll set about rambling on the subject shortly.
The Euro-Canada farce shows that a bespoke arrangement cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time span.
Consult the replay of TMS in full for todays play for the details.
It helps if you can gang up against the others. It's not a grouping that can ever be stable unless you make Europe one country with a common goal. That's why the founders saw the necessity to federalise. But because that is unpopular, they soft-pedalled it (lied or dissembled).
That's where we are now. As the Scottish play says "Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er." The electorate are dragging their feet over the next step - complete union.
Honesty would be nice but it dare not speak its name.