Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Many Democrats are viewing the November 6th Midterms in same w

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited October 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Many Democrats are viewing the November 6th Midterms in same way Remainers would view a second referendum

In 2016 there were two elections which had global reverberations – Brexit and, of course, the election of Donald Trump. Both were close, both were seen as defeats for the liberal establishment and in both those on the losing side would dearly love to see the outcomes thwarted in some way.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    For those with time on their hands in the runup to the midterms, FiveThirtyEight are putting out podcast episodes very frequently - I think daily, for the last two weeks.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237
    And the media tend to forget that a 5 in 6 chance of the Democrats gaining a majority in the House does not mean that they will.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other. It's going to take some pretty heroic counter-gerrymanders to fix.

    [Earlier, more spicily-phrased post seems to have disappeared, sorry if it's reappeared and I'm now repeating myself]
  • Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    Alistair said:

    I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.

    So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited October 2018
    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.

    So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?
    Not a clue. That's why I have exited the market.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other. It's going to take some pretty heroic counter-gerrymanders to fix.

    [Earlier, more spicily-phrased post seems to have disappeared, sorry if it's reappeared and I'm now repeating myself]

    When this happens at the start of a thread, you can often find the "disappeared" post via the Vanilla interface. I normally copy and paste it back to the pb interface and don't worry about the potential duplication.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The thing that I noticed in the one detailed breakdown of early voting in one state that I saw was that the increase in turnout seemed roughly equal between Democrats and Republicans, but far greater with non-affiliated. I might be naïve but I'd have thought that would be really good for the Democrats given that the extent to which turnout is being driven by attitudes to the president's agenda.

    Others will know better than me though.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.

    I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.

    It is not just GOP shyness but a question of whether anti-Trump GOP voters (the ones who are not just pretending to care about biblical virtues, or fiscal responsibility, and so on) regard Trump as sui generis, freeing themselves to vote for proper Republicans at lower levels.
  • The thing that I noticed in the one detailed breakdown of early voting in one state that I saw was that the increase in turnout seemed roughly equal between Democrats and Republicans, but far greater with non-affiliated. I might be naïve but I'd have thought that would be really good for the Democrats given that the extent to which turnout is being driven by attitudes to the president's agenda.

    Others will know better than me though.

    My experience of trying to read the entrails of early-voting figures in previous US elections is that it's incredibly difficult to interpret them. It seems as though the figures ought to be telling you something, but I haven't found any real predictive power in them. It might be that someone who really knows the state in question and the situation on the ground would be able to draw useful indications from the figures, but even that isn't very helpful because it's hard to get commentary which is both non-partisan and well-informed.
  • Latest polling from Spain. It shows PSOE increasing its lead and moving into territory where it will be hard to resist calling an early election. Overall, Span seems to be moving leftwards. PP has an existential crisis on its hands.
    https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1055410705753694209
  • Alistair said:

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
    He may be an adulterer, but at least he's our kind of adulterer! :-)
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Alistair said:

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
    That's partially explained by them prioritising abortion as an issue. And to be fair, if I thought abortion was baby murder, I'd think it was more important than Trump's history too
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Alistair said:

    I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.

    High turnout for the mid-terms should favour the Dems as they historically have lower mid-term turnout overall than the GOP.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311

    The thing that I noticed in the one detailed breakdown of early voting in one state that I saw was that the increase in turnout seemed roughly equal between Democrats and Republicans, but far greater with non-affiliated. I might be naïve but I'd have thought that would be really good for the Democrats given that the extent to which turnout is being driven by attitudes to the president's agenda.

    Others will know better than me though.

    That does sound good for the democrats.

    A little bit of googling to see how many there are does throw up the question. If the 39% unaffiliated voters are voting in higher number, and they must have supported Trump for him to get elected - who benefits?

    https://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics?t=1540465197624
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    Alistair said:

    I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.

    So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?
    Yes
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.

    I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
    Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    Alistair said:

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
    I would be intrigued to find out whether Democrats views moved in the opposite direction.
  • Alistair said:

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
    Evangelical voters have always put power above principles, so their support of Trump is consistent with that.

    One of the great misunderstandings of the Evangelical movement is the idea that the Abortion issue was the original 'mobiliser'. In fact it was the denial of tax exempt status for private white only schools in the south that really got them worked up. In particular the Bob Jones university case in the early 1980s.

    Here's a decent article from Slate on the topic:

    https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/05/the-religious-right-formed-around-support-for-segregation-not-against-abortion.html

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    rcs1000 said:

    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.

    I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
    Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")
    Surely your sample of Republicans will only contain the non-shy ones?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778
    Alistair said:
    So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    An interesting article from 538 about how much polling there is in each race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-some-competitive-races-have-little-to-no-polling-thats-a-problem/

    In some competitive races there has been none!
    The other point I took from the article though was that there was far more polling in areas where the Democrats were thought to be doing well. I wondered if that might create a bias in the overall polling. Certainly the news cycle of polls maybe more favourable to the Democrats than the true situation on the ground.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:
    So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.
    For me the big thing was the 'late' Republican surge in both.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    If white women break in favour of the Dems then it will be an ultra landslide.
  • According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    That seems to be on the high side. The general view is that a lead of 6-7% would do it.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    rcs1000 said:

    On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.

    I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
    Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")
    Yes but surely the base is similar to UK. There are probably 25% who would vote Labour or Tory in any case so half of all voters. It doesn’t matter how strong they are, it’s the other 50%who matter
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
    In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,778

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    There are 30 odd house seats where the Republicans have leads of less than 8% so I'm not sure where your 13% comes from.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited October 2018

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other. It's going to take some pretty heroic counter-gerrymanders to fix.

    [Earlier, more spicily-phrased post seems to have disappeared, sorry if it's reappeared and I'm now repeating myself]

    Gerrymandering is old hat for the Republicans. Now the thing to watch out for is outright voter suppression. Electoral politics in the US is brutal and the Republicans fight harder and dirtier than the Democrats.

    Expect the Democrats to "mysteriously" underperform their poll scores and be wary of ascribing this to lazy voters.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    rkrkrk said:

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
    In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
    There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

    And the effects of voter suppression efforts in individual states are even harder to quantify, but (as for example in Georgia) they are real.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    rely this is more equivalent to GE17 for Remainers when they could clip May's and hard Brexiteers wings as Denocrats can do with Trump.in the midterms? Remainers winning a second referendum and reversing Brexit would be the equivalent of Democrats beating Trump in 2020.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited October 2018

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    That is absurd, on the Yougov model the Democrats lead with 222 to 213 for the GOP with just a 7% lead

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/08/19/cbs-news-yougov-house-model-democrats-222-republic
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
    In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
    There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

    And the effects of voter suppression efforts in individual states are even harder to quantify, but (as for example in Georgia) they are real.
    Good points. I still think (and hope) 13% is too high.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Alistair said:

    Dems should win the House but not Senate. Not much value in either market.

    Nate Silver's 538 remains the best site for appraisals of the contest. There was a particular good article on it recently indicating that when values and tribal loyalties clash, voters tend to change their values. It's depressing if true. It suggests there is something inherent in the political system that divides us.

    538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.

    The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
    He may be an adulterer, but at least he's our kind of adulterer! :-)
    iirc someone here commented on JRM, who wears his religion on his sleeve for some issues, being so quick to defend Boris despite repeated breaches of commandment number six.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Y
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
    Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Nigelb said:

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
    US politics would really benefit from multi-member STV elections. Discuss?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    Latest polling from Spain. It shows PSOE increasing its lead and moving into territory where it will be hard to resist calling an early election. Overall, Span seems to be moving leftwards. PP has an existential crisis on its hands.
    https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1055410705753694209

    Though Citizens up 6% on the last general election and just behind the PP and the PSOE still below the P.O. total at the last general election
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    DavidL said:

    Y

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
    Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.
    He's not lieing Ted right now. He's "Beautiful Ted" !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited October 2018
    Beautiful Ted
    image
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,780
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Y

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
    Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.
    He's not lieing Ted right now. He's "Beautiful Ted" !
    I thought it was Texas Ted. But Trump does seem to have motivated his base to help his former rival.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    DavidL said:

    Y

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

    Frankly, I could envisage any number of outcomes, from the Republicans holding both the House and gaining Senators, to them losing both.

    If I were going to place a few small bets, they would be on Beto O'Rourke doing somewhat better than the polls suggest in Texas. It's just a hunch, but he's a charismatic candidate in a state that's trending blue.

    I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.

    The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
    Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.
    The issue seems to be with Hispanic voters. A higher proportion of them vote Republican in Texas than in the USA as a whole, and they have low turnout overall. My guess would be that people whose forebears moved to Texas hundreds of years ago from Spain are as likely to vote Republican as white Anglo voters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    HYUFD said:
    How will they pay !
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:
    How will they pay !
    Bitcoins?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,044
    EU fact of the day:

    The exposure of French banks to Italy sovereign debt amounts to 11pc of France’s GDP: Telegraph.


    Oh dear...
  • rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:
    So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.
    Absolutely agree. Turnout will be key in these elections.

    For example, Ipsos recently did a poll of the senate election in Nevada. They contacted 2,000 voters and this gives the Democrat a lead of 1. However, the same poll when cut back to 1,100 likely voters gives the Republican a lead of 6.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of undecided voters varies strongly by state. For example, Ipsos make Texas 49%R-44%D vs Nevada 47%R-41%D on likely voters, suggesting there is more opportunity for the Dems to turn around Nevada
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    They've put up the East Ham result instead of the Newport West result. Don't remember seeing a Plaid candidate on the ballot but no surprise they beat the LDs !!

  • I was very confused but I got there in the end...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    rkrkrk said:

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.

    How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
    In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
    There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

    And the effects of voter suppression efforts in individual states are even harder to quantify, but (as for example in Georgia) they are real.
    Good points. I still think (and hope) 13% is too high.
    I'm pretty sure you're right on that.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited October 2018

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    stodge said:

    They've put up the East Ham result instead of the Newport West result. Don't remember seeing a Plaid candidate on the ballot but no surprise they beat the LDs !!

    Missing a zero in the Tory figure. Fake news!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    They've missed literally 0 votes from the Tory total, but it has made a difference of 33%.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    They've missed literally 0 votes from the Tory total, but it has made a difference of 33%.
    If the swing in Newport W is the same as in Copeland (and there are lots of reasons it shouldn't be), then the result would be almost a dead-heat. For the Tories to be 3/1 to win suggests to me that unless there are local factors I'm not aware of, Labour should be shorter than they are.
  • DavidL said:
    First the Mail now the Express - It's extraordinary how unhip the ERG crowd have become and how in the ascendancy Theresa is. Everyone now loves her and hates them. The Brexit ultras made out that the 52% were all as swivel eyed as they were. I think the public are now punishing them for their presumptions.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    Not so much incredible, as inevitable, I think:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/24/instant-inevitable-cries-false-flag-after-bomb-threats-targeting-clintons-obamas-cnn/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    EU fact of the day:

    The exposure of French banks to Italy sovereign debt amounts to 11pc of France’s GDP: Telegraph.


    Oh dear...

    Titter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590
    False flag is not exactly a new meme for the party of Trump:
    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/261899230673784832
  • timmo said:
    An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    timmo said:
    Usually, they get knighted.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Nigelb said:

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    Not so much incredible, as inevitable, I think:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/24/instant-inevitable-cries-false-flag-after-bomb-threats-targeting-clintons-obamas-cnn/
    It's not completely ridiculous, the recent ricin containing letters were initially believed to be a politically motivated attack. The man who has been charged with sending them is a US Navy veteran from Utah who given the targets chosen may have some personal beef with the US Navy.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Nigelb said:

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
    Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
  • Sean_F said:

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.
    Not only that, but the return address on the packages shows they were sent by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Nigelb said:

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
    Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
    The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,981
    edited October 2018
    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
    The only man in history to recover from Alzheimer's.
  • Sean_F said:

    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
    The only man in history to recover from Alzheimer's.
    Prison changes a man.
  • timmo said:
    An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.
    That was nominative determinism in action.

    Didn’t Robert Loosemore go to prison as well?
  • timmo said:
    An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.
    That was nominative determinism in action.

    Didn’t Robert Loosemore go to prison as well?
    Yes. Several of them did a stint.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
    I'm surprised you're here and sober given the day.
  • Turnout will make at least as much difference as how the unaffiliated break in midterms. The trend is usually for the opposition party but on this occasions the Rs seem equally motivated, and I agree with Harry Hayfield that due to the concentration of Dem votes in the big cities the Dems may need a bigger lead in order to flip many of the battleground seats.

    My expectation is that the Dems will gain in the house but might lose one or two in the senate (though I have money on Nevada to go Dem). My instinct is that the House race will be incredibly close and my 100/1 on no majority is a genuine possibility.

    I just don't see enough evidence of a blue wave. Polls seem to be herding around a 45% approval rating for Trump which isn't positive or negative enough in either direction. The one caveat is the sheer volatility - Kavanaugh, the "bombs", the caravan are all events that can change the narrative entirely, and the atmosphere is such that there may be more to come.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited October 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    Not so much incredible, as inevitable, I think:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/24/instant-inevitable-cries-false-flag-after-bomb-threats-targeting-clintons-obamas-cnn/
    Politics is being unhinged....

    The more I read, the more I think about wandering off somewhere quiet and just let the world go to hell.
  • Sean_F said:

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.
    As well as being critics of Trump, all the recipients were involved in fixing the Democrat primaries against Sanders.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,911
    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
    Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
    The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.
    In a truly democratic system it shouldn't't really matter where your voters live. The US system is stacked in favour of rural conservatives with a Senate voter in Wyoming having the voting strength of 50 cCalifornians. That's before you begin to factor in gerrymandering and voter suppression. If the situation were reversed it would have been rectified years ago.
  • Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....

    Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
    https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
    Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
    The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.
    If you look at Minnesota for example, which has fairly sensible boundaries, they have the following Cook PVI ratings:

    R+5
    R+2
    D+1
    D+14
    D+26
    R+12
    R+12
    R+4

    The D+26 is Minneapolis and the D+14 is St Paul.
  • TOPPING said:

    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
    I'm surprised you're here and sober given the day.
    Well.

    I found out the MD of my new firm is French.

    This will be awkward.

    I only popped on here to reply to a message, now back to Agincourt Day celebrations.

    Personally speaking Waterloo, Trafalgar, and Mers-el-Kébir do it more for me.
  • Sean_F said:

    Extremist rhetoric leads to extremist attacks. This is neither surprising nor unprecedented.

    Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.

    I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

    This was not a man-in-the-street interview, this was a studio interview with a friend of John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser.

    Incredible...
    I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.
    As well as being critics of Trump, all the recipients were involved in fixing the Democrat primaries against Sanders.
    Even Robert De Niro?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,590

    TOPPING said:

    timmo said:
    Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

    I can name more if you’d like.
    I'm surprised you're here and sober given the day.
    Well.

    I found out the MD of my new firm is French.

    This will be awkward.

    I only popped on here to reply to a message, now back to Agincourt Day celebrations.

    Personally speaking Waterloo, Trafalgar, and Mers-el-Kébir do it more for me.
    Merde.
This discussion has been closed.