Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why YouGov says we should beware of the phantom swings: dramat

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why YouGov says we should beware of the phantom swings: dramatic bounces in the polls aren’t always what they seem

YouGov has produced what I regard as must read analysis by Benjamin Lauderdale of the LSE and Douglas Rivers on what it terms phantom polling swings. Thus on the face of it there has been a move from Clinton to Trump in the aftermath of the FBI announcement. Their argument is that this might not be all it seems

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    no comments?
  • Options
    RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Third, like the likely loss of value of the pound.
  • Options
    FPT: Mr. Sandpit, they're trying to shut the stable door, but the horse is two fields away.
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/02/demographics/#more-18439

    Article isn't very interesting but there is a fascinating generational vote chart buried in it.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    A significant portion of the American population think that any form of abortion at any point in the pregnancy including mrning after pill is murder.

    There's very little manouver on that one.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Third, like the likely loss of value of the pound.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/02/economy-to-grow-faster-than-expected-into-2017-as-uk-sustains-po/

    "The UK economy will grow faster next year than official predictions suggest, a pair of leading industry bodies have predicted.

    The Confederation of British Industry and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research expect GDP to grow by 1.3pc and 1.4pc respectively next year, higher than the current Bank of England estimate."
  • Options
    Florida appears about to go Red on 538.com, currently 50.2% Clinton vs 49.8% Trump.
  • Options

    Florida appears about to go Red on 538.com, currently 50.2% Clinton vs 49.8% Trump.

    Beware Reds Under The Bed!
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    Mr. Loony, if the Septics were like us then Clinton would have been hounded out of public life decades ago. Neither she nor Trump would have even got on to the ballot sheet. However, they aren't like us, at least when it comes to politics.
  • Options
    Afternoon all.

    Can’t remember YouGov warning against phantom swings and dramatic bounces during GE2015. In fact I can’t remember them ever mentioning them before. - Most odd.
  • Options
    Trump will be an extremely powerful president. He'll have majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. The only checks and balances will be provided by Republican controlled entities. It's going to be a hell of a few years.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607

    Third, like the likely loss of value of the pound.

    Weak ADP NFPs today, Sterling up almost a cent.
  • Options
    Nate Silver and others already "know" that this is the explanation for convention bounces. This is a pretty persuasive case that the rest of the industry is basically getting it wrong.

    The question is whether we should assume that both sides become equally motivated in the immediate run up to election day, meaning that final polls can be "trusted". Or, with a lot of nose-holding going on, is that unwarranted?
  • Options
    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Just incase people are wondering what other non-538 sites are predicting PEC have Hilary's chances at 98%
  • Options

    Afternoon all.

    Can’t remember YouGov warning against phantom swings and dramatic bounces during GE2015. In fact I can’t remember them ever mentioning them before. - Most odd.

    They did actually. It was one of the reasons they only polled panel members who had joined pre January 2015 for GB wide VI polls for the general election.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    The proposition seems reasonable to me. Casting a vote on which one seems the least bad choice is one thing, but how on earth anyone can actively support either of them beats me.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • Options
    If YouGov alone are right about this, they could be about to hit the jackpot in the US reputation-wise .... glad I held onto my shares!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    Alistair said:

    Just incase people are wondering what other non-538 sites are predicting PEC have Hilary's chances at 98%

    Has Romney won yet 8o) ?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    edited November 2016

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
  • Options

    Afternoon all.

    Can’t remember YouGov warning against phantom swings and dramatic bounces during GE2015. In fact I can’t remember them ever mentioning them before. - Most odd.

    Yes they have mentioned this before, for example here:

    Here’s the reason. Those who supported Romney in September were more likely than Obama supporters to respond to our follow-up survey after the first debate. The re-contact rate was 80% for Romney supporters and 74% for Obama supporters. That’s why the raw numbers - and the demographically-only adjusted numbers - for the post-debate poll appeared to tilt the whole contest towards Romney.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-kellner/barack-obama-mitt-romney-us-election-_b_2005585.html
  • Options
    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    Just because you're normal Loony and no longer Raving, you shouldn't assume that everyone else is the same.
  • Options
    Whilst I think the YouGov argument may have merit, it would have more merit if voting wasn't already happening. Essentially they are saying that Clinton supporters aren't very perky, and so don't want to respond to an opinion poll. But isn't it likely that this lack of perkiness will also discourage them from taking part in the actual election?
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
  • Options
    Cheers TSE & Mr Nabavi for your replies - YouGov did several changes IIRC, was not always aware of the warnings or reasoning behind such moves.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    FPT


    The next Veritas video

    https://youtu.be/j1L1gNUPbTw

    That Hillary wheeled out gangster getaway driver moll Miss Universe to shame Trump for commenting on what beauty queens look like yesterday...

    I'm waiting for the DNC to drop a bombshell on Trump - and still nothing. She was in total unhinged rant mode when a single Bill Is A ********* protestor waved a placard.

    It was bizarre.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-loses-her-cool-after-heckler-calls-bill-a-rapist/
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784

    Whilst I think the YouGov argument may have merit, it would have more merit if voting wasn't already happening. Essentially they are saying that Clinton supporters aren't very perky, and so don't want to respond to an opinion poll. But isn't it likely that this lack of perkiness will also discourage them from taking part in the actual election?

    they also said the same about republicans after pussygate
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Donald Trump is no Alan Sugar!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910

    Whilst I think the YouGov argument may have merit, it would have more merit if voting wasn't already happening. Essentially they are saying that Clinton supporters aren't very perky, and so don't want to respond to an opinion poll. But isn't it likely that this lack of perkiness will also discourage them from taking part in the actual election?

    I struggle to understand anyone who won't vote in an election. But there are tonnes of them about !

    (Except maybe the police commissioner ones)
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Trump will be an extremely powerful president. He'll have majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. The only checks and balances will be provided by Republican controlled entities. It's going to be a hell of a few years.

    Bless my soul, Mr. Observer, you have become dreadfully pessimistic in the last few months. Perhaps you need a nice holiday.
  • Options
    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Nah. Both Lefties/Remainers.

    I presume it's Sugar because Trump also did The Apprentice but Farage is a much better fit.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
  • Options
    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    MaxPB said:

    Third, like the likely loss of value of the pound.

    Weak ADP NFPs today, Sterling up almost a cent.
    The ISM number is very weak too.
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited November 2016

    Whilst I think the YouGov argument may have merit, it would have more merit if voting wasn't already happening. Essentially they are saying that Clinton supporters aren't very perky, and so don't want to respond to an opinion poll. But isn't it likely that this lack of perkiness will also discourage them from taking part in the actual election?

    I think perhaps what is being suggested is that Clinton supporters' unwillingness/reluctance to respond to an opinion poll is on account of their shyness, rather than representing any actual change in their voting intention as such.
    So yes, once again, we're back to the shyness issue!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    I note that if you take a video of someone with a camera close in at chest level, and then stop the frame & change it to black and white - they always look guilty as hell.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    The problem with this argument is that it doesn't help you work out where the neutral point is. If there's an underlying shyness effect it could be skewing everything, most likely against Trump given the social stigma about supporting him.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,403

    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Nah. Both Lefties/Remainers.

    I presume it's Sugar because Trump also did The Apprentice but Farage is a much better fit.
    But Farage is quite good at cheerful/affable. Many people find him likeable. Alan Sugar has the perma-anger of Donald Trump.
    Though really, there isn't a British equivalent - or even really an American equivalent. Donald is sui generis.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    PlatoSaid said:


    I'm waiting for the DNC to drop a bombshell on Trump - and still nothing. She was in total unhinged rant mode when a single Bill Is A ********* protestor waved a placard.

    It was bizarre.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-loses-her-cool-after-heckler-calls-bill-a-rapist/

    It sounded like a greatest hits compilation of Blairite slogans. "Forwards not back!"
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    You have evidence of that?
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
    Funny how 619 found out about what is a very minor incident in a way-out part of the USA.

    And yes! I defend the EDL to have the right to have a peaceful demonstration. I would defend the right of the UAF to have a peaceful demonstration.

    But it is always the UAF - as I posted links yesterday, which try and disrupt the EDL. In case you missed it - I posted a quote from the local police thanking the EDL stewards in maintaining order.

    So I suggest you take off your blinkers and break free from your political indoctrination.
  • Options

    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.

    I think Aaron Banks might be a better fit than Farage.
  • Options

    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.

    I think Aaron Banks might be a better fit than Farage.
    Good call! That works.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,491
    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

    It's not as though Trump has made any effort (indeed, quite the reverse) to distance himself from hate groups.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Just incase people are wondering what other non-538 sites are predicting PEC have Hilary's chances at 98%

    Has Romney won yet 8o) ?
    PEC's final 2012 prediction was
    Obama 51.1% Romney 48.9% vs actual 52.0/48.0

    EVs predicted 303/235 vs actual 332/306 (Called Florida for Romney)
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Nigelb said:

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

    It's not as though Trump has made any effort (indeed, quite the reverse) to distance himself from hate groups.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
    No doubt - I mean it is not as if Democrat supporters such as David Attenborough would publicly demand that Trump is shot.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    edited November 2016

    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.

    I think Aaron Banks might be a better fit than Farage.
    You need someone with a proven talent for trolling, celebrity profile, no previous political involvement, history of narcissistic self-promotion and ability to manipulate the media.

    If you could somehow merge Simon Cowell and David Starkey, that would be the man. Campaign manager: Max Clifford.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Is that when some racist twats fire bomb a black church?
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Pulpstar said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.
    I think not, Mr. Royale. I think my cat would win an election against that avaricious old bitch. The great British public are not enamoured of mendacious, selfish people out to enrich themselves in every way they can. They are far more likely to vote for a handsome black and white cat, or indeed any cat. Left and right does not enter into it.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Nigelb said:

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

    It's not as though Trump has made any effort (indeed, quite the reverse) to distance himself from hate groups.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
    Oh fooey

    The Trump anti Jew bloke was a Hillary activist FFS. They're crap at hiding their real identities. The guy had a massive inner forearm tattoo that gave him away within 5 mins.

    The DNC are paying for this bird-dogging. If you're falling for it - more fool you.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050

    Trump will be an extremely powerful president. He'll have majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. The only checks and balances will be provided by Republican controlled entities. It's going to be a hell of a few years.


    Calm down darling and take a camomile.

    This Trump last week resurgence is just what the Clinton campaign needed. It helps her that the narrative is now much tighter than it is and Trump is sprinting along the outside like RedRum.

    The election was much more in the balance a few weeks when Clinton collapsed like a sack of spuds.

    Now it's all going to be about GOTV....and quite frankly the Democrats have a much greater pool to fish from.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    vik said:
    If Trump takes Colorado then it will be the biggest electoral failure by the Democratic machine since they said "Ralph Nader won't causes us any problems and in fact I encourage him to be on the ballot in Florida"
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
    But Eagles, this screams (like certain eagles) of 'how can I best damage Trump? I know, let's burn a church, preferably with a black or Latino congregation, and spray Trump's name over it." And I am an anyone but Trump person.
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:


    I'm waiting for the DNC to drop a bombshell on Trump - and still nothing. She was in total unhinged rant mode when a single Bill Is A ********* protestor waved a placard.

    It was bizarre.

    http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-loses-her-cool-after-heckler-calls-bill-a-rapist/

    It sounded like a greatest hits compilation of Blairite slogans. "Forwards not back!"
    "Not one step back!"
    "Ни шагу назад!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_No._227
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,491
    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Surely you're not suggesting that the venerable Lord S is a tax evading, racist fraudster and sex pest ?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

    It's not as though Trump has made any effort (indeed, quite the reverse) to distance himself from hate groups.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
    Oh fooey

    The Trump anti Jew bloke was a Hillary activist FFS. They're crap at hiding their real identities. The guy had a massive inner forearm tattoo that gave him away within 5 mins.

    The DNC are paying for this bird-dogging. If you're falling for it - more fool you.
    What exactly is the evidence that he was a Hillary activist? Because, you know, they've constructed a powerfully intriguing multi-year long profile for him if he is a deep cover plant.
  • Options
    MTimT said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
    But Eagles, this screams (like certain eagles) of 'how can I best damage Trump? I know, let's burn a church, preferably with a black or Latino congregation, and spray Trump's name over it." And I am an anyone but Trump person.
    I know, is why I look out for your posts, but when you put that story in the context of this.....

    White nationalists plot Election Day show of force

    KKK, neo-Nazis and militias plan to monitor urban polling places and suppress the black vote.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    tyson said:

    Trump will be an extremely powerful president. He'll have majorities in both houses of Congress and on the Supreme Court. The only checks and balances will be provided by Republican controlled entities. It's going to be a hell of a few years.


    Calm down darling and take a camomile.

    This Trump last week resurgence is just what the Clinton campaign needed. It helps her that the narrative is now much tighter than it is and Trump is sprinting along the outside like RedRum.

    The election was much more in the balance a few weeks when Clinton collapsed like a sack of spuds.

    Now it's all going to be about GOTV....and quite frankly the Democrats have a much greater pool to fish from.
    I can't believe you've effectively compared Hillary Clinton to Crisp.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050
    vik said:
    Vik...you do realise that prediction gives Trump Michigan....... not one opinion poll has given Trump a lead in Michigan. It may as well give him some other states in which no opinion poll has given him a lead for all it's worth..
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,251
    edited November 2016
    MTimT said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
    But Eagles, this screams (like certain eagles) of 'how can I best damage Trump? I know, let's burn a church, preferably with a black or Latino congregation, and spray Trump's name over it." And I am an anyone but Trump person.
    12 years ago today:

    Dutch film director Theo van Gogh, whose film "Submission" was critical of the treatment of women in Islam, was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Is that when some racist twats fire bomb a black church?
    Benjamin Barber's Wikipedia entry
    Benjamin R. Barber (born August 2, 1939) is an American political theorist, racist and author perhaps best known for his 1995 bestseller, Jihad vs. McWorld and 2013's If Mayors Ruled the World.

  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    MTimT said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ah yes the EDL defender speaks.
    But Eagles, this screams (like certain eagles) of 'how can I best damage Trump? I know, let's burn a church, preferably with a black or Latino congregation, and spray Trump's name over it." And I am an anyone but Trump person.
    Quite. The problem the bird-doggers have is that they're so effing OTT.

    In Scott Adams' neighbourhood, a load of shop fronts were defaced with swastikas. In California.

    The more they shriek, the less convincing they become - especially after many have seen or heard about the Veritas stuff.

    Over 6m views so far

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    The Clintons immediately rubbed the Washington press up the wrong way when Bill became president. Hillary gave a number of highly combative interviews. Everything the Clintons do is filtered through a hostile press.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190

    Pulpstar said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.
    I think not, Mr. Royale. I think my cat would win an election against that avaricious old bitch. The great British public are not enamoured of mendacious, selfish people out to enrich themselves in every way they can. They are far more likely to vote for a handsome black and white cat, or indeed any cat. Left and right does not enter into it.
    Indeed. Politics has turned into a version of "Snog, Marry, Avoid". Only you want to Avoid all the candidates.

  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    She's been in the national public eye for twenty five years, you accumulate a lot of enemies in that time.

    Plus she hasn't helped herself with her conduct on any number of matters, Travelgate, the vast right wing conspiracy, the email server, to name but a few.

    One or two you could put down as one of those things, but with so many you can draw inferences about her.

    The main thing going for her is that she's not Donald Trump, as evidenced by this poll of British voters

    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/793741244891529220
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.
    I think not, Mr. Royale. I think my cat would win an election against that avaricious old bitch. The great British public are not enamoured of mendacious, selfish people out to enrich themselves in every way they can. They are far more likely to vote for a handsome black and white cat, or indeed any cat. Left and right does not enter into it.
    Indeed. Politics has turned into a version of "Snog, Marry, Avoid". Only you want to Avoid all the candidates.

    I'd snog Donald Trump, because I have low standards because I'd give him a kiss, a Glasgow kiss
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    The Clintons immediately rubbed the Washington press up the wrong way when Bill became president. Hillary gave a number of highly combative interviews. Everything the Clintons do is filtered through a hostile press.
    It didn't stop Bill winning the Presidency twice, though. And it was years ago. There must be something more than that. I just don't get the level of vitriol that she appears to inspire.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    Having met her, I think she is clearly intelligent, and hard working, but not personally warm.

    Is she crooked? Who knows, but really, the only the evidence of any 'crooked Hillary' is the futures trades she did 40 years ago and that's despite quite ridiculous sums being spent on investigations.

    Will she do anything radical? Probably not.

    But her economic policies are generally rational, while Trump's proposal to massively increase spending while reducing taxation and slapping tariffs on everything is clearly deranged.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    tyson said:

    vik said:
    Vik...you do realise that prediction gives Trump Michigan....... not one opinion poll has given Trump a lead in Michigan. It may as well give him some other states in which no opinion poll has given him a lead for all it's worth..
    The map I'm looking at has MI as Dem, not GOP.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    Pulpstar said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    If neither were wearing party ribbons, it'd be a landslide for Nige.
    If it was Blair-Labour vs Farage-UKIP, big win for Cherie I think.

    Alot of people are just wedded to voting "Labour", take that away and the vote would evaporate.
    The Right-Left split in England is probably 56-44 at the moment. But about a quarter of Conservatives might vote Cherie to stop Nigel, so I expect she'd carry it.
    I think not, Mr. Royale. I think my cat would win an election against that avaricious old bitch. The great British public are not enamoured of mendacious, selfish people out to enrich themselves in every way they can. They are far more likely to vote for a handsome black and white cat, or indeed any cat. Left and right does not enter into it.
    Indeed. Politics has turned into a version of "Snog, Marry, Avoid". Only you want to Avoid all the candidates.

    I'd snog Donald Trump, because I have low standards because I'd give him a kiss, a Glasgow kiss
    Hate speech noted :)
  • Options
    Sean_FearSean_Fear Posts: 83
    edited November 2016
    tyson said:

    vik said:
    Vik...you do realise that prediction gives Trump Michigan....... not one opinion poll has given Trump a lead in Michigan. It may as well give him some other states in which no opinion poll has given him a lead for all it's worth..
    It gives Trump all of the Romney States plus Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Maine 2 and Iowa. But, of course, a minute shift back to Clinton would put Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Maine 2 back in her column.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''White nationalists plot Election Day show of force''

    If you really read that report, I mean really read it, the whole thing is pretty weak.

    Planning to hand out booze and weed to get black people wasted so they don;t go to the polls? hidden cameras?

    I mean FFS.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Alistair said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    weejonnie said:

    619 said:
    Ever heard of black-ops?
    Ever heard of Occam's razor ?

    It's not as though Trump has made any effort (indeed, quite the reverse) to distance himself from hate groups.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
    Oh fooey

    The Trump anti Jew bloke was a Hillary activist FFS. They're crap at hiding their real identities. The guy had a massive inner forearm tattoo that gave him away within 5 mins.

    The DNC are paying for this bird-dogging. If you're falling for it - more fool you.
    What exactly is the evidence that he was a Hillary activist? Because, you know, they've constructed a powerfully intriguing multi-year long profile for him if he is a deep cover plant.
    From my searches all I've got is that he once appeared in a video that went viral a few years ago. And that's it.

    The interviews he's given since, his social media profile everything says he's a TRump supporter.
  • Options
    ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,819
    Cookie said:

    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Nah. Both Lefties/Remainers.

    I presume it's Sugar because Trump also did The Apprentice but Farage is a much better fit.
    But Farage is quite good at cheerful/affable. Many people find him likeable. Alan Sugar has the perma-anger of Donald Trump.
    Though really, there isn't a British equivalent - or even really an American equivalent. Donald is sui generis.
    Yes definitely - even I, as a lefty remainer, could see why you would choose to have a pint with Farage , politics aside he seems alright. Trump on the other hand, seems to be a very flawed narcissistic individual on a personal level, much more dislikeable.

    Cherie Blair vs Piers Morgan perhaps!
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Surely you're not suggesting that the venerable Lord S is a tax evading, racist fraudster and sex pest ?
    No just a similar loudmouth off the telly.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    Corrupt
    Serial liar
    Only in it for herself
    Hypocrite
    Two faced
    Bully

    I think that's enough.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    The Clintons immediately rubbed the Washington press up the wrong way when Bill became president. Hillary gave a number of highly combative interviews. Everything the Clintons do is filtered through a hostile press.
    It didn't stop Bill winning the Presidency twice, though. And it was years ago. There must be something more than that. I just don't get the level of vitriol that she appears to inspire.

    8 years as first lady, 8 years as a Senator, 4 years as Secretary of State, then four years as the presumptive nominee, she's been at the executive/federal level longer than anyone since Bush Senior or maybe FDR.

    You accumulate a lot of enemies even if you do the right things in all of those jobs.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    The Clintons immediately rubbed the Washington press up the wrong way when Bill became president. Hillary gave a number of highly combative interviews. Everything the Clintons do is filtered through a hostile press.
    Clinton has been around a very long time, certainly long enough for Americans to form their own opinion of her. At best she comes across as cold, calculating and robotic. You can’t blame the press for that.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    619 said:
    We KNOW it is apparantly close in Florida, like we know that Donald Trump taking New York or DC is not very likley.

    Those 29 votes are, I gather, playing hell with the spread-betting markets.
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Nah. Both Lefties/Remainers.

    I presume it's Sugar because Trump also did The Apprentice but Farage is a much better fit.
    But Farage is quite good at cheerful/affable. Many people find him likeable. Alan Sugar has the perma-anger of Donald Trump.
    Though really, there isn't a British equivalent - or even really an American equivalent. Donald is sui generis.
    Yes definitely - even I, as a lefty remainer, could see why you would choose to have a pint with Farage , politics aside he seems alright. Trump on the other hand, seems to be a very flawed narcissistic individual on a personal level, much more dislikeable.

    Cherie Blair vs Piers Morgan perhaps!
    FBI vs Al Capone
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    'I think that's enough.'

    Reading the stuff that comes out about Clinton, the word that comes to mind is 'sociopath' .

    Zero moral constraints, zero empathy, zero conscience.
  • Options
    tysontyson Posts: 6,050
    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    That's obvious.....she's been in the public eye for so long and had so much crap thrown at her and some of it has stuck, some of it rightly so. But she was actually quite a popular senator for New York, and quite a popular secretary of state.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    619 said:
    When was the last time a man did anything early ?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    PlatoSaid said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    Corrupt
    Serial liar
    Only in it for herself
    Hypocrite
    Two faced
    Bully

    I think that's enough.

    I hope your pockets are deep, accusing someone of being corrupt doesn't come pain free.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,597
    A British Trump? Mike Ashley.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Any Christmas dinner experts out there, this year it is my turn to host dinner, what are the pros and cons of getting a goose? I'm putting together an order and the option to get a goose is available.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Cookie said:

    glw said:

    JohnLoony said:

    The most bizarre thing about this whole thing is that Clinton isn't leading against Trump by 90:10 in every single state. If the people of the USA were normal people, like we are here in Europe, then Clinton would be heading towards a 538:0 landslide.

    No. The UK equivalent would be Cherie Blair v. Nigel Farage.

    In England overall that would be very close.
    The comparison I've used to explain what is going on is Cherie Blair versus Alan Sugar.
    Nah. Both Lefties/Remainers.

    I presume it's Sugar because Trump also did The Apprentice but Farage is a much better fit.
    But Farage is quite good at cheerful/affable. Many people find him likeable. Alan Sugar has the perma-anger of Donald Trump.
    Though really, there isn't a British equivalent - or even really an American equivalent. Donald is sui generis.
    Yes definitely - even I, as a lefty remainer, could see why you would choose to have a pint with Farage , politics aside he seems alright. Trump on the other hand, seems to be a very flawed narcissistic individual on a personal level, much more dislikeable.

    Cherie Blair vs Piers Morgan perhaps!
    FBI vs Al Capone
    The number of legal types who've cited RICO in relation to CF and CGI is notable. The FBI have 4 area offices investigating the CF now. It's a racket - anyone who's read the Podesta emails can see it.

    All the rest is handwaving.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2016
    619 said:
    That's a Clinton landslide if true.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    PlatoSaid said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    Corrupt
    Serial liar
    Only in it for herself
    Hypocrite
    Two faced
    Bully

    I think that's enough.

    I hope your pockets are deep, accusing someone of being corrupt doesn't come pain free.
    And yet you've not said the same thing about the thousands of comments on here saying the same thing about Trump.

    That says more about your political bias than about your concern for the financial well-being of impoverished lawyers.
  • Options

    PlatoSaid said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Hello everyone.

    I know this may seem late in the day but why is Hilary so disliked/hated?

    She may be a charisma-free zone and with not that many achievements to her name. But those don't seem like reasons to hate. Is she more untruthful than most politicians?

    What is it about her that so many people dislike to the extent that they apparently do?

    Corrupt
    Serial liar
    Only in it for herself
    Hypocrite
    Two faced
    Bully

    I think that's enough.

    I hope your pockets are deep, accusing someone of being corrupt doesn't come pain free.
    figure HRC will probably be too busy too sue plato, what with one thing or another, whatever the result of the election
This discussion has been closed.