politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Clinton does win the popular vote then it’ll make the polli

SystemSystem Posts: 11,015
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Clinton does win the popular vote then it’ll make the polling look a tad less bad

This is becoming a bit of a pattern. A massive election in which the pollsters are seen to have performed badly.

Read the full story here


«13456789

Comments

  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,599
    Clinton 0.1% behind in the popular vote with 16% of California still to declare.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    National polling, maybe. State polling?
  • Options
    Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,599
    If only Clinton had also managed to be first.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Glad you got out of your spread bet, OGH!
  • Options
    dogbasketdogbasket Posts: 73
    Clinton does win the popular vote. Los Angeles alone has enough votes for her.

    The problem with that picture is that California's electoral votes are boosted bigly by the illegals there, so a national vote win predicated on California isn't really too meaningful.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2016
    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Seems in key states the public don't give a monkeys.

    I did say i had no clue about any Clintons policies & I suspect a lot of Americans didn't either, where as trump narrative was simple I will enact stuff to get American jobs back.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    If it ends up 2% out in a weird, hard-to-predict election that's not a bad performance.

    One of the things that's making pollsters look bad is big, high-profile squeaker elections. If Hillary had won but they'd over-stated her by 2% nobody would be moaning about them.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    BBC playing a piano version of The Anacreontic Song...sounds funereal.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,803
    dr_spyn said:

    BBC playing a piano version of The Anacreontic Song...sounds funereal.

    For Whom The Bell Tolls.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar as spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Seems in key states the public don't give a monkeys.

    I have a bit of a pet theory that the fact that Donald is a misogynistic bigot isn't a net negative for the "damn them all to hell" voters who want disruptive change. So repeatedly pointing it out doesn't necessarily do his campaign as much harm as Dems might have expected.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Looks like IBD/TIPP further entrenched as the Gold Standard. Brilliant performance.
  • Options
    ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    FPT:
    Alistair said:

    When I said Clinton would be closer to 300 than 400 I obviously meant 200 and 300

    You were right...! :)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    dogbasket said:

    Clinton does win the popular vote. Los Angeles alone has enough votes for her.

    The problem with that picture is that California's electoral votes are boosted bigly by the illegals there, so a national vote win predicated on California isn't really too meaningful.

    Surely illegal immigrants aren't allowed to vote ?
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    I’ve said it before, but - well done OGH for ditching Clinton on the spreads when you did and hope other punters were able to read the runes correctly, from about 1:30 this morning.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Pulpstar said:

    dogbasket said:

    Clinton does win the popular vote. Los Angeles alone has enough votes for her.

    The problem with that picture is that California's electoral votes are boosted bigly by the illegals there, so a national vote win predicated on California isn't really too meaningful.

    Surely illegal immigrants aren't allowed to vote ?
    Do they count in the census though? That sets the number of EVs (although can't see what dogbasket's point is).
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2016
    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar as spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Seems in key states the public don't give a monkeys.

    I have a bit of a pet theory that the fact that Donald is a misogynistic bigot isn't a net negative for the "damn them all to hell" voters who want disruptive change. So repeatedly pointing it out doesn't necessarily do his campaign as much harm as Dems might have expected.
    I certainly wonder in certain parts of America if the language wasn't as offensive as the media thought, a little bit like stuff farage gets labeled as racist for is not seen as such in places like Stoke.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar as spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Seems in key states the public don't give a monkeys.

    I have a bit of a pet theory that the fact that Donald is a misogynistic bigot isn't a net negative for the "damn them all to hell" voters who want disruptive change. So repeatedly pointing it out doesn't necessarily do his campaign as much harm as Dems might have expected.
    Someone was saying Trump fans were enjoying living vicariously though somebody who tells everyone to fuck off. The downside of course being that he'll tell them to fuck off.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    edited November 2016
    deleted.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    SimonStClare said:

    I’ve said it before, but - well done OGH for ditching Clinton on the spreads when you did and hope other punters were able to read the runes correctly, from about 1:30 this morning.

    I tilted towards Trump in the wee hours, but not by enough sadly. Bit of a shellacking on this one.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    36894 potential registered voters left to count

    = 25825 (Assume 65% turnout)

    40.2% gap (Avg)

    Yields 10381 closing

    Close but no cigar for Clinton
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    dr_spyn said:

    Tram incident at Croydon with some loss of life.

    Quite a lot apparently. Horrible.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    Remember when we thought Ronald Reagan was dangerous.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    The popular vote is effectively 50-50 - although I acknowledge precisely which side of that divide it falls might be of more interest to some on here!

    Six of those pollsters above are more than 3% out. No margin-of-error safe haven for these pollsters.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    Pulpstar said:

    36894 potential registered voters left to count

    = 25825 (Assume 65% turnout)

    40.2% gap (Avg)

    Yields 10381 closing

    Close but no cigar for Clinton

    Is that Michigan?
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    I certainly wonder in certain parts of America if the language wasn't as offensive as the media thought.

    I'm not saying people like it or approve of it, but if they want a wrecking ball to change Washington and politics the fact that it is foul mouthed might not be negative. i.e. The worse he is the bigger a change there will be.
  • Options
    MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited November 2016
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Nigelb said:

    Moses_ said:


    Lady on BBC claiming that Quote

    "USA is waking up to a situation "half the country had not voted for"

    unquote

    Oh FFS here we go again...

    It is one of the features of elections that in nearly all of them under any system the result is one which 'nearly half' (or more than half, depending on system) didn't vote for.

    It seems to be an issue when a right party wins, not a left. Most odd and uneducated of commentators not to know this simple fact.

    The elections where nearly 100% vote for a candidate tend to be won by the likes of Putin and Mugabe, so I think having about 50 not voting for could be described as an advantage of democracy.
    Saint Obama only got 51% last time, so by these idiots logic the same is true of Obama administration.
    People say a 50-50ish election result shows a country is "divided". But in many ways it at least shows two evenly matched sides who could both have had a chance of victory.

    A 60-40 or 70-30 split is in many ways more divisive. The victor has no need to appeal to the 30% or 40% - they don't need the votes. So why reach out to them? Stuff 'em.

    And the losers have no sense that they could win by democratic means. Would require a huge swing. They have no buy-in to The System. Then you are forced to look for ways of having your voice heard beyond the ballot. Things get pretty dangerous at that point.

    You often see this pattern in developing countries, particularly with imbalanced social or ethnic groups. The US has done very well, given its demographics, has done very well to avoid this kind of division. If we had 60-40 splits primarily based on racial polarisation, that would be a far more divided country than a 50-50 one.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    edited November 2016
    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287
    @maxPB

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/croydon-tram-derailment-people-trapped-after-tram-overturns-in-at-sandilands-a3390796.html
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    This wasn't scientific polling; it was wishful thinking. The sort of faith and hope that Obama once proclaimed and so quickly discarded.

    Most of the polling organisations are rubbish with political outcomes and should be disbanded as they take money and fees on false pretences.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    What is the total US electorate for the presidency this year?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2016
    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    Al Murray pub landlord act is exactly this....he ad libs a lot of it and it is tweaked by the audience members play ball...and why lefties think he is taking the piss out of right wingers & vice versa.
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    lol.

    Romney got 47.4% IIRC.

    Trump will - quite possibly - get less than that.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,022
    edmundintokyo said:

    glw said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar as spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Seems in key states the public don't give a monkeys.

    I have a bit of a pet theory that the fact that Donald is a misogynistic bigot isn't a net negative for the "damn them all to hell" voters who want disruptive change. So repeatedly pointing it out doesn't necessarily do his campaign as much harm as Dems might have expected.
    Someone was saying Trump fans were enjoying living vicariously though somebody who tells everyone to fuck off. The downside of course being that he'll tell them to fuck off.
    That's one of the few things that I don't see as a downside tbh.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    edited November 2016
    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    He was. Reagan turned out to be right.

    I think someone on the previous thread probably called Trump correctly. He is transactional. He'll say and do what is necessary to get a deal done, but will have no compunction about then breaking its terms if that's what suits him. I'd take a lot of what he said during the campaign with a pinch of salt. It won't happen. The racism and the misogyny are different matters - they are part of what he is. For many voters, that would have been enough.

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Pong said:

    lol.

    Romney got 47.4% IIRC.

    Trump will - quite possibly - get less than that.

    He's got it where it counts..... :p
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    dr_spyn said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    Remember when we thought Ronald Reagan was dangerous.
    I remember a similar level of despair in the UK this equivalent morning in 1980. Reagan? We're doomed. DOOMED, I tell yer.....

    How did that fear work out?
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,304
    On topic, I would have done quite nicely on this election but unfortunately got trapped in the Clinton ECVs market on Betfair which wasn't very liquid, I couldn't cash out, and I just got stuck in it: wiping out most of my winnings.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Looks like IBD/TIPP further entrenched as the Gold Standard. Brilliant performance.

    IBD/TIPP Who have a 2 point Trump Popular Vote lead?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Pong said:

    lol.

    Romney got 47.4% IIRC.

    Trump will - quite possibly - get less than that.

    The vote, it's going to be so efficient.

    It'll be the MOST efficient vote.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    rottenborough said:

    SimonStClare said:

    I’ve said it before, but - well done OGH for ditching Clinton on the spreads when you did and hope other punters were able to read the runes correctly, from about 1:30 this morning.

    I tilted towards Trump in the wee hours, but not by enough sadly. Bit of a shellacking on this one.
    Sorry to hear that Mr borough, hopefully there’s still enough left to buy a commiseration beer.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    How can MN not possible be called ?

    Where is Trump finding the votes ?
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    311 for 4 we'll take that
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,022
    MarqueeMark said:

    The popular vote is effectively 50-50 - although I acknowledge precisely which side of that divide it falls might be of more interest to some on here!

    Six of those pollsters above are more than 3% out. No margin-of-error safe haven for these pollsters.

    I think I may have inadvertently stumbled on the magic formula yesterday.
    Theuniondivvie said:

    MikeK said:

    My new forecast:
    Trump wins by 1.12%

    Given your 120 UKIP MP prediction, can we assume this means Hillary wins by 0.07%?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited November 2016
    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    No, I thought he was a bloody idiot. And so he proved to be.

    Wheras Trump has built a number of thriving businesses and become a billionair due to his own brains, savvy and hard work. He may appear uncouth and unpolished by the elites and some PBers, but I'll take him any day over Hillary.
  • Options
    simonmaxwellsimonmaxwell Posts: 5
    I bet Paddy Power are feeling like right chumps this morning, what with having paid out on a Clinton victory a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps in future they'll hold their horses and not pay out on victories until the voting is actually over. Muppets.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Alistair said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Looks like IBD/TIPP further entrenched as the Gold Standard. Brilliant performance.

    IBD/TIPP Who have a 2 point Trump Popular Vote lead?
    Give it a break.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Jesus the west coast counts bloody slowly.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189
    Has anyone else hit the wall? :(
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Casino_Royale said:

    On topic, I would have done quite nicely on this election but unfortunately got trapped in the Clinton ECVs market on Betfair which wasn't very liquid, I couldn't cash out, and I just got stuck in it: wiping out most of my winnings.

    I got to -647 on Betfair, realised something didn't quite smell right at 1.13 and reversed it to +980 odd on Trump. I changed a 1000 lay at 1.13 to 500, bit annoyed with myself for doing that.

    Side bets should pay for the modest SPIN losses (£15/pt Hillary sub 250) and I think I've won on turnout too.

    Could have won more, but might have lost a wodge.
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?

    Brexit won a popular vote.

    Trump won a national election.

    Corbyn won a relatively small selectorate, with self-selected voters. Doesn't compare.

  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Looking at Michigan on Fox I think Clinton can put on another 17,000 votes which won't be enough due to the various small bumps that are still to come in for Donald.

    Unless Fox have fucked up their Washtenaw figures are there isn't another 19% to declare there.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    HuffPo:

    America Tells Donald Trump 'You're Hired' In Night Of Incredible Drama
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.
    The oracle from Liverpool has written him off though.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Stein still a 1.0%? Are we going to get clarification on that one?
  • Options
    dogbasketdogbasket Posts: 73
    Trump to win Michigan is free money. 100% of Washtenaw precincts are PARTIALLY counted and included in a total of Trump 49,758, Hillary 124,694

    The partially counted precincts are:

    Ann Arbor Ward 1 Precinct 1 - 10, 2012 turnout 8133 votes>

    https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2016/index.jsp

    2016 COUNTED votes 8807 https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2016/canvassreport530.html

    Ann Arbor Ward 3 Precincts 7-9,
    Turnout 2012 3165
    2016 COUNTED votes 3065

    Ann Arbor Ward 4 Precincts 1-3,5,6
    Turnout 2012 4347
    2016 COUNTED votes 4641

    So there are only a few hundred votes tops to count in Washtenaw.

    The remaining votes in Geneseee are all in the 7 Flushing precincts https://co.genesee.mi.us/currentelectionsresults/summary.htm Here there are 3707 votes were won by Obama but only by 363 votes.

    Trump leads by NINETEEN THOUSAND.

    Clinton has no possible way to win in Michigan.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    rottenborough said:

    HuffPo:

    America Tells Donald Trump 'You're Hired' In Night Of Incredible Drama

    Have they apoligised for calling Clinton a 98%+ chance?!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,807
    simonmaxwell said:

    I bet Paddy Power are feeling like right chumps this morning, what with having paid out on a Clinton victory a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps in future they'll hold their horses and not pay out on victories until the voting is actually over. Muppets.

    Paddy Power will be paying me £125 this morning.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    No, they all do that, that's why they have focus groups. But they try to find out if the voters will like the thing first, then only say they're going to do it if they do. Trump's innovation was publicly saying he was going to do something, then rolling with it if they like it or dropping it if it don't.

    The reason politicians didn't normally do this was because they get dinged for incoherence and inconsistently. It turns out either this doesn't matter, or it does normally matter but the rules don't apply to Trump.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Alistair said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Looks like IBD/TIPP further entrenched as the Gold Standard. Brilliant performance.

    IBD/TIPP Who have a 2 point Trump Popular Vote lead?
    Give it a break.
    You're the one claiming a crap poll is accurate.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2016
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Stein still a 1.0%? Are we going to get clarification on that one?

    Currently at 0.954%

    But that is just taking the headline figures from Fox. She will actaully be fractionally lower due to write ins and the like that are not gathered under the 5 candidates that Fox lists.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,807
    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.
    I think he has, but crucially, older voters are very hostile to him.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.

    Yep - he has tapped into a relatively small, largely middle class, left wing demographic of people who do not feel they need a Labour government or really fear the consequences of a Tory one.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/annemcelvoy/status/796312559959863296
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Interesting that losers Mitt Romney, John McCain and John Kerry have about the same number of votes as Trump.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Alistair said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Stein still a 1.0%? Are we going to get clarification on that one?

    Currently at 0.954%

    But that is just taking the headline figures from Fox. She will actaully be fractionally lower due to write ins and the like that are not gathered under the 5 candidates that Fox lists.
    On the other hand, remaining votes appear to be in states where she is on the ballot. Could be close.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,807
    Pulpstar said:

    How can MN not possible be called ?

    Where is Trump finding the votes ?

    He didn't just win the White vote. He did remarkably well (for a Republican) with black and Hispanic voters.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    edited November 2016
    I just got back in. Has Hilary conceded yet?

    ;)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    Clinton was ahed all along, but Trump was winning all along.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    SouthamObserver said:

    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.

    Yep - he has tapped into a relatively small, largely middle class, left wing demographic of people who do not feel they need a Labour government or really fear the consequences of a Tory one.

    In my experience it's not middle class at all.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,972
    MikeK said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    No, I thought he was a bloody idiot. And so he proved to be.

    Wheras Trump has built a number of thriving businesses and become a billionair due to his own brains, savvy and hard work. He may appear uncouth and unpolished by the elites and some PBers, but I'll take him any day over Hillary.
    He had a hell of lift from Daddy though!
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/annemcelvoy/status/796312559959863296

    Another one we will hopefully soon be rid of.
  • Options
    JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.
    I know there are some superficial comparisons between Trump and Corbyn - both ageing white men with no experience - but that's about it. The election was a rejection of Corbyn's politics, not an endorsement. If anything, this is a massive shot in the arm for UKIP.

    Anyway, watching the wake at the BBC is utterly delicious. Twice in one year!
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Looking at CNN exit polling I think I've found the key polling fail

    white college graduates
    Clinton: 45%
    Trump: 49%

    All the polls were saying white college educated were in Clinton's favour or at least 50/50. Reverse those figures and (as college whites were 37% of the electorate) Clinton wins all the close ones.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited November 2016
    So when do we expect judge Judy trump to find clinton guilty of something?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1V6KwNnbBO1q4dDwC1r0rujdcNByLHpVI1O2WKpzNfV8/edit#gid=0

    To the victor...
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    Have the Greens done for Hillary as they did for Gore (according to legend)? Seems they may in FL?
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    "If Clinton does win the popular vote then it’ll make the polling look a tad less bad"

    The words "straws", "clutching" and "at" spring to mind!
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/annemcelvoy/status/796312559959863296

    She'll be out on her ear next...

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    steve richards ‏@steverichards14 2m2 minutes ago
    It looks like the end of Obamacare. I wonder how many Trump voters will be victims of its abolition.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    It seems I missed all the fun last night. It looks as though it would have been a fantastic election to be live-betting on and now I'm feeling sulky about that.

    Well done to @PlatoSays for sticking to her guns under fire. Unlike almost all of the other Trumpers, she did not seek to distance herself from the object of her admiration and she never disappeared when things looked bleak for her man.

    Those Leave supporters who are appalled by Donald Trump's election might wish to reflect on that feeling at their leisure. You can't separate the victory from the manner of the victory. That was true of the EU referendum and it will be true of Donald Trump's presidency.

    Rarely has a man appeared so unworthy of the hopes vested in him by those who voted for him, but they can't say they weren't warned. Once again, it may very well be that those voters who most enthusiastically voted for him that will be most completely shafted by the consequences.

    And sadly, the continent we live in is a much less safe place at the end of 2016 than it started it.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited November 2016
    Alistair said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Alistair said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Looks like IBD/TIPP further entrenched as the Gold Standard. Brilliant performance.

    IBD/TIPP Who have a 2 point Trump Popular Vote lead?
    Give it a break.
    You're the one claiming a crap poll is accurate.
    If you'd paid more attention to IBD/TIPP's crap polling, you wouldn't have made such a monumental tit of yourself.
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,298
    edited November 2016
    I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    Alistair said:

    Looking at CNN exit polling I think I've found the key polling fail

    white college graduates
    Clinton: 45%
    Trump: 49%

    All the polls were saying white college educated were in Clinton's favour or at least 50/50. Reverse those figures and (as college whites were 37% of the electorate) Clinton wins all the close ones.

    You have to be a bit careful diagnosing a polling fail by looking at an exit poll, but basically it looks like despite everything most of the traditional GOP supporters ended up voting GOP. Polling-fail-wise this sounds like quite a plausible reason for a last-minute switch, as opposed to the pollsters bollocksing up the sample all along.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Dipping into this Trey Gowdy chap (thanks Plato).
    In a John Grisham book the insurance company write to the mother of a cancer victim claiming health insurance that she must be "stupid, stupid, stupid".

    Here is an example of an MIT Professor being caught out saying that US people must be stupid, stupid to swallow Obamacare statements.
    http://tinyurl.com/obnbbya
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    dr_spyn said:

    @maxPB

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/croydon-tram-derailment-people-trapped-after-tram-overturns-in-at-sandilands-a3390796.html

    It looks fairly awful. One carriage looks as though it's partially on the rails; the other is on its side, either before or after a sharp bend / junction.

    RAIB's going to be busy.
  • Options
    Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    OldKingCole said:

    MikeK said:

    Jonathan said:

    Remember when we thought George W Bush was dangerous.

    No, I thought he was a bloody idiot. And so he proved to be.

    Wheras Trump has built a number of thriving businesses and become a billionair due to his own brains, savvy and hard work. He may appear uncouth and unpolished by the elites and some PBers, but I'll take him any day over Hillary.
    He had a hell of lift from Daddy though!
    And the bankruptcy laws of the United States.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    Al Murray pub landlord act is exactly this....he ad libs a lot of it and it is tweaked by the audience members play ball...and why lefties think he is taking the piss out of right wingers & vice versa.
    Trump said in a rally speech that some random person came up with Drain With Swamp. He didn't much like it, but gave it a try. The audience went wild and took it up themselves.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/annemcelvoy/status/796312559959863296

    Stupid way for Merkel to start diplomacy with the world's super power and providor of her national security.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,192
    Daily Mash:

    "BRITAIN has woken up relieved to find its idiotic act of self-harm earlier this year is now a piffling historical footnote."

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    Stark_Dawning said:

    I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.

    Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.

  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,190
    JosiasJessop said:

    dr_spyn said:

    @maxPB

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/croydon-tram-derailment-people-trapped-after-tram-overturns-in-at-sandilands-a3390796.html

    It looks fairly awful. One carriage looks as though it's partially on the rails; the other is on its side, either before or after a sharp bend / junction.

    RAIB's going to be busy.
    Looks like its at the junction where the lines to new Addington and Beckenham diverge. Runs down a ramp into a cutting where the old Addiscombe branch used to run, with sharp 90 degree turns onto the old formation. Looks like the Tram has come off the track on the points at the junction.
  • Options
    TheKingofLangleyTheKingofLangley Posts: 70
    Stark_Dawning said:

    I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.

    Someone like Corbyn could thrive but it's not going to be an IRA/Hamas supporter who is opposed to shooting armed terrorists.

  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,922
    Jonathan said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    Jonathan said:

    rottenborough said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Alistair said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.

    Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.

    Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
    Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
    My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
    Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
    Corbyn has definitely tapped something. No doubt about that.

    Yep - he has tapped into a relatively small, largely middle class, left wing demographic of people who do not feel they need a Labour government or really fear the consequences of a Tory one.

    In my experience it's not middle class at all.

    It is in mine.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,953
    Clinton has now taken the popular vote lead.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    SouthamObserver said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.

    Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.

    And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
This discussion has been closed.