Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mid Terms 2018 : Hour by hour, state by state, your timetable

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 6 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mid Terms 2018 : Hour by hour, state by state, your timetable for tonight

The Mid Term Elections of 2018 are shaping up to be one of the most important elections in recent times, perhaps up there with the 1994 Republican “Contract with America” or the 2010 “schallacking” that the Republicans gave the Democrats. Whatever happens, all the twists and turns will be poured over for years to come, so instead of looking at the issues, I will be focusing on which congressional districts are likely to flip (GAIN) and what impact that will have on the House.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,926
    1
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    2
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    edited November 6
    For those who gave up on House of Cards some time ago, here's an entertaining finale spoiler:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/06/havent-watched-house-cards-years-who-cares-lets-talk-about-ending/
  • First once the vanilla gremlins kick in.

    Thanks Harry.
  • Am glad I'm not alone in fearing a GOP majority in the House.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    And many thanks to Harry - I was going to request precisely such a guide.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    Though I think he's way off on his House prediction.
    FWIW.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,986
    FPT: Did we cover this on here last week? [I was on holiday in Scotland.] It makes a pretty compelling argument that Mueller may have already subpoenaed Trump.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,986
    Thanks to Harry - but (as discussed previously) I think this is wrong:

    [I]t would take a 7% swing to the Democrats since the 2016 congressional election for that to happen.

    In 2016 the Republicans won the popular vote by about 1%; the commonly accepted target for the Democrats [to win the House] is to be ahead by 5-7%. Surely that's a 3-4% swing?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,797
    edited November 6

    Am glad I'm not alone in fearing a GOP majority in the House.

    Agreed. I think it's an entirely possible outcome. That said, I think the Democrats will do better than that. My own prediction would be a Dem majority of c.15. Republicans to retain control of the Senate with 51.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,739
    Nigelb said:

    For those who gave up on House of Cards some time ago, here's an entertaining finale spoiler:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/06/havent-watched-house-cards-years-who-cares-lets-talk-about-ending/

    That final season, they should have just canned it when Kevin was found to be persona non grata.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    For comparison Orange County had 80% turnout in 2016
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,730
    Tonight's timetable:

    22:00 GMT Go to bed

    03:00 GMT Wake up needing to pee

    06:00 GMT Get up for work

    06:30 GMT Find out what has happened

    Enjoy the night, those staying up!
  • Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 56
    edited November 6
    "Lt Col" Thornberry did try to warn us about England flag flying..



    The film was apparently shot in the back garden of the house that the father and son are believed to share in South Norwood, where there is an England flag on a pole.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/father-and-son-among-five-arrested-over-sick-grenfell-tower-bonfire-video-a3982141.html
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    edited November 6

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,503
    edited November 6
    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.

    The gubernatorial elections makes me think we'll see a blue wave.

    I'd love to see some analysis on how much split ticketing we'll see tonight.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
    Yeah, there's nothing in the early voting (apart from Nevada which is almost a special case how predictably it's registration/early vote matches final results) that suggest anything particularly good for the Dems.

    If anything I think it looks good for the GOP as there doesn't seem to be any significant lag in the response rate between the two parties.
  • FPT: Did we cover this on here last week? [I was on holiday in Scotland.] It makes a pretty compelling argument that Mueller may have already subpoenaed Trump.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/31/has-robert-mueller-subpoenaed-trump-222060

    That would explain the smears against Mueller last week.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    edited November 6
    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
    I great deal of caution on here, probably based on the upset that got His Orangeness elected two years ago. I would hope the polling companies have debugged their systems and improved the predictive capability since last time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 70,028
    edited November 6
    We were promised we were going to fly Emirates first class to Australia and now we're forced to fly on Ryanair or cattle class on British Airways to Antarctica
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 875
    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,620

    We were promised we were going to fly Emirates first class and we're forced to fly on Ryanair or cattle class on British Airways
    Destination Sunlit Uplands (Timbuktu) Airport.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,503

    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.

    The gubernatorial elections makes me think we'll see a blue wave.

    I'd love to see some analysis on how much split ticketing we'll see tonight.

    So what you are saying I think is that normally we'd expect the incumbent supporters to sit out the mid terms, and their opponents to be the ones most likely to vote anyway, and if the voting is up it could quite simply be more of the incumbent supporters making the effort this time.

    That's the opposite of the most common narrative, that energised angry Democrats and millenials are going to kick the GOP out.

    Either explanation makes sense to me, and I have no idea which is more likely.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.
    I disagree. The GOP is usually a lot better at getting its vote out in midterms than the Dems, so the Ds have a larger pool available and a higher than usual turnout is most likely going to come from it.

    Of course, the voters that hadn't voted before (or for a very long time) but came out in 2016 for Trump may do so again, but I don't think enough will to spoil the Dems' night.
  • glw said:

    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.

    The gubernatorial elections makes me think we'll see a blue wave.

    I'd love to see some analysis on how much split ticketing we'll see tonight.

    So what you are saying I think is that normally we'd expect the incumbent supporters to sit out the mid terms, and their opponents to be the ones most likely to vote anyway, and if the voting is up it could quite simply be more of the incumbent supporters making the effort this time.

    That's the opposite of the most common narrative, that energised angry Democrats and millenials are going to kick the GOP out.

    Either explanation makes sense to me, and I have no idea which is more likely.
    Trump has fired up his base, my American friends, some of them who are GOPers say some of Trump's supporters are acting in the way I talk about the supporters of Corbyn, who also display cult (sic) like behaviour.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,297
    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    rpjs said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.
    I disagree. The GOP is usually a lot better at getting its vote out in midterms than the Dems, so the Ds have a larger pool available and a higher than usual turnout is most likely going to come from it.

    Of course, the voters that hadn't voted before (or for a very long time) but came out in 2016 for Trump may do so again, but I don't think enough will to spoil the Dems' night.
    My view is that a high turnout will benefit the Democrats in general, but it will benefit the Republicans in Red States.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
  • rpjs said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.
    I disagree. The GOP is usually a lot better at getting its vote out in midterms than the Dems, so the Ds have a larger pool available and a higher than usual turnout is most likely going to come from it.

    Of course, the voters that hadn't voted before (or for a very long time) but came out in 2016 for Trump may do so again, but I don't think enough will to spoil the Dems' night.
    I think you're right, I'm expecting the Dems to take the House, I'm just trying to look/understand how that might not happen.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
    Minnesota and Ohio polling were just as awful too. Minnesota in particular flew under the radar because it stayed blue.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,639
    edited November 6
    I don't get it - is she genuinely suggesting for some reason white women in general only voted certain ways previously because their man told them to, that'd be a bit insulting and patronising wouldn't it?

    Funny photo though.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    No way the Dems get to 60+, there aren't enough seats up for that to happen!
  • Right time to watch Crvena Zvezda v Liverpool.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    Pulpstar said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
    Minnesota and Ohio polling were just as awful too. Minnesota in particular flew under the radar because it stayed blue.
    Oh goodness yes - I'd forgotten them, I'd actually taken a Clinton bite in Ohio because the odds were good. I believe I had cashed out before the election fortunately which limited my betting disaster some what.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    rpjs said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    No way the Dems get to 60+, there aren't enough seats up for that to happen!
    60+ House gains not Senate seats total!
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    Alistair said:

    rpjs said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    No way the Dems get to 60+, there aren't enough seats up for that to happen!
    60+ House gains not Senate seats total!
    Ah!
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 875
    edited November 6

    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016?

    538: had Clinton winning by 3.6%.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    RCP: had Clinton winning by 3.3%.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html


    Clinton ended on +2.1%. Johnson was quite over-estimated by both, and a great deal of those went to Trump in the end.

    Of course, state polling ..... much more difficult.
  • kle4 said:

    I don't get it - is she genuinely suggesting for some reason white women in general only voted certain ways previously because their man told them to, that'd be a bit insulting and patronising wouldn't it?

    Funny photo though.
    I didn't get it either, but I chose it for the photo, which will appear in future PB threads.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326

    kle4 said:

    I don't get it - is she genuinely suggesting for some reason white women in general only voted certain ways previously because their man told them to, that'd be a bit insulting and patronising wouldn't it?

    Funny photo though.
    I didn't get it either, but I chose it for the photo, which will appear in future PB threads.
    Don't they have polling booths? The poor buggers.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 363
    Steris today the largest company in our industry and a multi billion dollar company announced it is moving registered HQ from the UK to Ireland due to Brexit. Not sure how much tax revenue this will cost the UK but if they are moving when will others go. Ireland has a good reason for talks to fail and a hard Brexit to happen.

    Recent economic sentiment data has been tough across all sectors. Are we heading for a self imposed recession? I get the feeling TM is running out of time.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    Sean_F said:

    rpjs said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    For those betting on high turnout:



    Already exceeded 2014 vote by the first hour or so of voting.

    Glad I listened to you on this.
    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.
    I think the higher turnout benefits the GOP, plus we forget just how gerrymandered the House is in favour of the GOP.
    I disagree. The GOP is usually a lot better at getting its vote out in midterms than the Dems, so the Ds have a larger pool available and a higher than usual turnout is most likely going to come from it.

    Of course, the voters that hadn't voted before (or for a very long time) but came out in 2016 for Trump may do so again, but I don't think enough will to spoil the Dems' night.
    My view is that a high turnout will benefit the Democrats in general, but it will benefit the Republicans in Red States.
    Yes, one of the remarkable things of 2016 was the incredible vote efficiency of Trump's vote - shift a few tens of thousands of votes around the country and Clinton is president. A very plausible thing this time round is huge Republican vote inefficiency today. Racking up massive scores in their already gerrymandered districts but losing all the competitive races.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,730
    Scott_P said:
    Do these Momentumites actually have any idea of the Labour leadership's views on the EU?

    I'm a thousand times closer to Jezza and McD on Brexit than these assorted fellow-travelers.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 6,730
    Thankfully there are no sectors of the British electorate where women's votes are determined by their husbands.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't get it - is she genuinely suggesting for some reason white women in general only voted certain ways previously because their man told them to, that'd be a bit insulting and patronising wouldn't it?

    Funny photo though.
    I didn't get it either, but I chose it for the photo, which will appear in future PB threads.
    Don't they have polling booths? The poor buggers.
    Not been out to vote myself yet, which will be my first time non-postal, but I am lead to believe that those cardboard screens are pretty universal.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,297
    Andrew said:

    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016?

    538: had Clinton winning by 3.6%.
    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

    RCP: had Clinton winning by 3.3%.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html


    Clinton ended on +2.1%. Johnson was quite over-estimated by both, and a great deal of those went to Trump in the end.

    Of course, state polling ..... much more difficult.
    Out by 1.2% is not bad. It's the electoral college that did for Clinton not the vote share.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,174
    edited November 6

    Tonight's timetable:

    22:00 GMT Go to bed

    03:00 GMT Wake up needing to pee

    06:00 GMT Get up for work

    06:30 GMT Find out what has happened

    Enjoy the night, those staying up!

    I on the other hand, in true politics geek style, have booked tomorrow off work so that I can spend all night squinting at a grainy CNN stream.

    But I agree with those who fear it will be a surprisingly good set of results for the Republicans.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,297
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
    Yes but the polling had narrowed in Pennsylvania with most polls showing it close and most final polls were within a margin of 3%. That's the problem with a binary who is ahead rather than how close is it. Had the actual outcome had a 0.4% swing the other way then people might say the polls were spot on.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 832
    Jonathan said:
    A large one obviously
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,297
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
    Yes but the polling had narrowed in Pennsylvania with most polls showing it close and most final polls were within a margin of 3%. That's the problem with a binary who is ahead rather than how close is it. Had the actual outcome had a 0.4% swing the other way then people might say the polls were spot on.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,300
    House: +32 (Dems take control)
    Senate Rep + 1 (ND) (GOP retain control)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    Two comments:

    1. Those are gutsy calls on the House and Senate. Not necessarily wrong, but gutsy given the Dems look highly likely to lose North Dakota, and there are a couple of other states that look highly marginal.

    2. The most important thing about this election may not be the House and Senate, it may be the Governorships. Remember that in most States the Governor gets to choose the replacement in the event that a Senator dies or becomes otherwise incapacitated. Governors also lead the redistricting process, so Democratic gains here likely result in a House that is gerrymandered the other way come 2022.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    Anorak said:

    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
    I great deal of caution on here, probably based on the upset that got His Orangeness elected two years ago. I would hope the polling companies have debugged their systems and improved the predictive capability since last time.
    It is possible that they are failing to pick up on Trump supporters going out to vote again. It's also possible they changed their turnout filters to assume that cohort will vote... when they might not.

    In 2010, the pollsters overestimated the Conservative Party. In 2015, it was Labour. In 2017, it was the Conservatives again.

    So, who the hell knows?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    One other thing: white women.

    They voted for President Trump by nine percentage points. Watch how they vote tonight. If it's approaching parity, it's very bad news for the Republicans in 2020.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    One other other thing: watch for the results for West Virginia Third. Go Ojeda!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,698
    Dominic Raab is closing down Boris Johnson all the time in the next Prime Minister and next Conservative leader as the Brexiteer candidate of choice on the Betfair market.

    If we see crossover, can we expect his price then to shorten very markedly indeed?
  • TheoTheo Posts: 123
    Remainers being as tasteful as ever.

    Meanwhile, someone needs to inform Macron that he's part of "a complete fantasy". Nick Clegg told us.

    www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,874
    rcs1000 said:

    Anorak said:

    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
    I great deal of caution on here, probably based on the upset that got His Orangeness elected two years ago. I would hope the polling companies have debugged their systems and improved the predictive capability since last time.
    It is possible that they are failing to pick up on Trump supporters going out to vote again. It's also possible they changed their turnout filters to assume that cohort will vote... when they might not.

    In 2010, the pollsters overestimated the Conservative Party. In 2015, it was Labour. In 2017, it was the Conservatives again.

    So, who the hell knows?
    I don't think that's particularly true for 2010.

    The final polls from Ipsos, YouGov, ICM and ComRes, are below

    C:36 L:29
    C:35 L:28
    C: 36 L:28
    C: 37 L:28

    Now, with a final score, to 3sf of 36.9 to 29.7 (GB only) you might have a case that Labour were under-rated but, if anything, so were the Conservatives.

    (of all the final polls, only 2 'over-estimated the Tory share - ComRes and Populus, both being bang on to 2 sf).

    Now, that's a difference to the Conservatives polling higher at the start of the Campaign.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684

    Steris today the largest company in our industry and a multi billion dollar company announced it is moving registered HQ from the UK to Ireland due to Brexit. Not sure how much tax revenue this will cost the UK but if they are moving when will others go. Ireland has a good reason for talks to fail and a hard Brexit to happen.

    Recent economic sentiment data has been tough across all sectors. Are we heading for a self imposed recession? I get the feeling TM is running out of time.

    It's the double taxation / withholding tax issue that I keep banging on about.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684

    House: +32 (Dems take control)
    Senate Rep + 1 (ND) (GOP retain control)

    I think the Republicans will take Missouri too, and have a good shot at Indiana. West Virginia, Florida and Montana will, I suspect, stay Democrat.

    On the other side of the equation, I think the Dems will probably sneak Nevada, and may also grab Arizona.

    My central assumption is R + 1 in the Senate, but I think R + 2 is nearly as likely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    Theo said:

    Remainers being as tasteful as ever.

    Meanwhile, someone needs to inform Macron that he's part of "a complete fantasy". Nick Clegg told us.

    www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-european-army-france-russia-us-military-defence-eu-a8619721.html
    I think you misunderstood Clegg: he meant an EU army was his fantasy.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Andrew said:

    Still quite a gap between most prediction models and the markets. Betfair/predictit/smarkets all have Dems at around 73% for the House.

    Models all take polls as the input. After key polling misses in 2016 I think most punters are wary of US polling.
    How inaccurate was US polling in 2016? Sure they thought Hillary would win but she did win the national vote in line with much polling. It was the swing states narrowly going Trump that got missed and some polling had warned that could happen.

    I think the pundits more than pollsters has a bad 2016. Just the same as with Brexit. The pollsters in both votes warned it could happen but the pundits didn't believe it.
    Of polls done from October onwards:
    Pensylvania had 1 poll with Trump in front from 25
    Florida was suitably mixed
    Wisconsin was a polling average of Clinton +7 - the closest poll was Clinton +4. No polls even so much as showed Trump tying never mind ahead
    Michigan had 1 poll out of 18 with Trump in front.

    At the key states that Trump won the polling was terrible with the exception of Florida.
    Yes but the polling had narrowed in Pennsylvania with most polls showing it close and most final polls were within a margin of 3%. That's the problem with a binary who is ahead rather than how close is it. Had the actual outcome had a 0.4% swing the other way then people might say the polls were spot on.
    Polling that is wrong in one direction is bad. Independent polls should be out in both directions. They key Trump state polls were all out in favour of Clinton.

    You can't just treat them as a single super poll, they are independent measurements. They were badly wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684

    rcs1000 said:

    Anorak said:

    glw said:

    Alistair said:

    Wish I had some clue what was going to happen for actual results.

    Can't help but feel the massive turnout is either going to be v good for Republicans or blue tsunami. No middle ground wishy washy Dems gain 32 seats average fence sitting.

    Either GOP hold on everywhere and smash the senate or Dems go 60+ seats and sweep governorships and Senate seats.

    I've seen so many articles about why early voting looks good for the Democrats, but absolutely nothing that convinces me that there is any reason to assume it to be so. I hope the Democrats do well, but I don't quite believe that they will.
    I great deal of caution on here, probably based on the upset that got His Orangeness elected two years ago. I would hope the polling companies have debugged their systems and improved the predictive capability since last time.
    It is possible that they are failing to pick up on Trump supporters going out to vote again. It's also possible they changed their turnout filters to assume that cohort will vote... when they might not.

    In 2010, the pollsters overestimated the Conservative Party. In 2015, it was Labour. In 2017, it was the Conservatives again.

    So, who the hell knows?
    I don't think that's particularly true for 2010.

    The final polls from Ipsos, YouGov, ICM and ComRes, are below

    C:36 L:29
    C:35 L:28
    C: 36 L:28
    C: 37 L:28

    Now, with a final score, to 3sf of 36.9 to 29.7 (GB only) you might have a case that Labour were under-rated but, if anything, so were the Conservatives.

    (of all the final polls, only 2 'over-estimated the Tory share - ComRes and Populus, both being bang on to 2 sf).

    Now, that's a difference to the Conservatives polling higher at the start of the Campaign.

    Fair point: I was sort of thinking of the betting markets, where 2010 and 2017 saw - until the BBC exit polls came out - the Conservatives more highly rated than the actuality. While in 2015 it was the other way around.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    rcs1000 said:

    Two comments:

    1. Those are gutsy calls on the House and Senate. Not necessarily wrong, but gutsy given the Dems look highly likely to lose North Dakota, and there are a couple of other states that look highly marginal.

    2. The most important thing about this election may not be the House and Senate, it may be the Governorships. Remember that in most States the Governor gets to choose the replacement in the event that a Senator dies or becomes otherwise incapacitated. Governors also lead the redistricting process, so Democratic gains here likely result in a House that is gerrymandered the other way come 2022.

    Highly unlikely to be gerrymandered the other way - given where we are now, that would just take too much effort. It might just be, god forbid, a bit fairer.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,662
    Nigelb said:

    For those who gave up on House of Cards some time ago, here's an entertaining finale spoiler:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/06/havent-watched-house-cards-years-who-cares-lets-talk-about-ending/

    Cheers for that, glad that I gave up on it now. That all seems completely batshit insane.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,599
    MaxPB said:

    Nigelb said:

    For those who gave up on House of Cards some time ago, here's an entertaining finale spoiler:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/11/06/havent-watched-house-cards-years-who-cares-lets-talk-about-ending/

    Cheers for that, glad that I gave up on it now. That all seems completely batshit insane.
    No spoilers please!!! Even commenting is a spoiler of sorts Max!!
  • From the BBC

    Meanwhile, the government has published the criteria for allocating scarce permits for British truckers who need to drive in the EU after Brexit.

    The permits will be shared out based on: vehicle emissions, number of international journeys in the previous year, number of international journeys as a percentage of all journeys, type of goods transported and an element of chance.

    The Department of Transport document says the permits would be required for a no deal scenario BUT might also be required after the future economic partnership is agreed, depending on the type of deal.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 2,455

    Scott_P said:
    Do these Momentumites actually have any idea of the Labour leadership's views on the EU?

    I'm a thousand times closer to Jezza and McD on Brexit than these assorted fellow-travelers.
    I find it disorientating. I grew up regarding leaving the EU as a hard left policy. To find it being implemented by the Tories, supported by the Labour leadership and opposed by the Labour Party members? The world is turned upside down.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    From the BBC

    Meanwhile, the government has published the criteria for allocating scarce permits for British truckers who need to drive in the EU after Brexit.

    The permits will be shared out based on: vehicle emissions, number of international journeys in the previous year, number of international journeys as a percentage of all journeys, type of goods transported and an element of chance.

    The Department of Transport document says the permits would be required for a no deal scenario BUT might also be required after the future economic partnership is agreed, depending on the type of deal.

    ‘An element of chance’ - well, better than Brexit itself, I guess, which at this point is a complete gamble.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,300
    Looks like a pretty good plan to me
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,300
    rcs1000 said:

    House: +32 (Dems take control)
    Senate Rep + 1 (ND) (GOP retain control)

    I think the Republicans will take Missouri too, and have a good shot at Indiana. West Virginia, Florida and Montana will, I suspect, stay Democrat.

    On the other side of the equation, I think the Dems will probably sneak Nevada, and may also grab Arizona.

    My central assumption is R + 1 in the Senate, but I think R + 2 is nearly as likely.
    Definitely plausible.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,859
    Many thanks Harry. I seriously regret that I need to be in Court early tomorrow. It looks like it is going to be an interesting night.

    FWIW (not a lot) my forecast is:

    House: Dems +29 = majority of 12 (I think)

    Senate Republicans +1, majority of 4.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Steris today the largest company in our industry and a multi billion dollar company announced it is moving registered HQ from the UK to Ireland due to Brexit. Not sure how much tax revenue this will cost the UK but if they are moving when will others go. Ireland has a good reason for talks to fail and a hard Brexit to happen...

    Not a view universally shared over there, apparently.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/how-brexit-burned-uk-irish-friendship-theresa-may-leo-varadkar/
    An editor of one Irish newspaper put it even more bluntly. “I don’t give a f**k about Brexit, good luck to you. But just don’t f**k us over. If that border goes up, I’m telling you there will be hell.”
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    rcs1000 said:

    House: +32 (Dems take control)
    Senate Rep + 1 (ND) (GOP retain control)

    I think the Republicans will take Missouri too, and have a good shot at Indiana. West Virginia, Florida and Montana will, I suspect, stay Democrat.

    On the other side of the equation, I think the Dems will probably sneak Nevada, and may also grab Arizona.

    My central assumption is R + 1 in the Senate, but I think R + 2 is nearly as likely.
    I think you're broadly right, but the Ds will just hold MO and ID. I am still hoping for an upset in TN or (please!) TX but I doubt it'll happen.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,698
    Nigelb said:

    From the BBC

    Meanwhile, the government has published the criteria for allocating scarce permits for British truckers who need to drive in the EU after Brexit.

    The permits will be shared out based on: vehicle emissions, number of international journeys in the previous year, number of international journeys as a percentage of all journeys, type of goods transported and an element of chance.

    The Department of Transport document says the permits would be required for a no deal scenario BUT might also be required after the future economic partnership is agreed, depending on the type of deal.

    ‘An element of chance’ - well, better than Brexit itself, I guess, which at this point is a complete gamble.

    Maybe they could broadcast that bit on a Saturday night's TV, complete with Mystic Mogg:

    "I see success for Lutons in Luton, hauliers in Harrogate and truckers in Teesside. Pantechnicons in Tonypandy could be celebrating tooooo."
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    Nigelb said:

    From the BBC

    Meanwhile, the government has published the criteria for allocating scarce permits for British truckers who need to drive in the EU after Brexit.

    The permits will be shared out based on: vehicle emissions, number of international journeys in the previous year, number of international journeys as a percentage of all journeys, type of goods transported and an element of chance.

    The Department of Transport document says the permits would be required for a no deal scenario BUT might also be required after the future economic partnership is agreed, depending on the type of deal.

    ‘An element of chance’ - well, better than Brexit itself, I guess, which at this point is a complete gamble.

    So if you run a haulage company, maybe you'll still be able to operate in five months' time or maybe you won't. Might as well dissolve the company and sell off the assets to buy lottery tickets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Nigelb said:

    From the BBC

    Meanwhile, the government has published the criteria for allocating scarce permits for British truckers who need to drive in the EU after Brexit.

    The permits will be shared out based on: vehicle emissions, number of international journeys in the previous year, number of international journeys as a percentage of all journeys, type of goods transported and an element of chance.

    The Department of Transport document says the permits would be required for a no deal scenario BUT might also be required after the future economic partnership is agreed, depending on the type of deal.

    ‘An element of chance’ - well, better than Brexit itself, I guess, which at this point is a complete gamble.

    Maybe they could broadcast that bit on a Saturday night's TV, complete with Mystic Mogg:

    "I see success for Lutons in Luton, hauliers in Harrogate and truckers in Teesside. Pantechnicons in Tonypandy could be celebrating tooooo."
    Apparently there wouldn’t be anywhere near enough permits to go around, so more like misery in Merseyside; hell in Hull; woe in Walsall; and a nadir at Newport Pagnall.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063

    Dominic Raab is closing down Boris Johnson all the time in the next Prime Minister and next Conservative leader as the Brexiteer candidate of choice on the Betfair market.

    If we see crossover, can we expect his price then to shorten very markedly indeed?

    I've got him as red in the book, and can't see the big short odds case for him. If Brexit works, May is going nowhere. If it doesn't then he's down with the Govt ship. Id have the big offices of state (Hunt, Javid) ahead of him.
    I don't particularly rate him to be honest. Looks like another false favourite to me
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 21,698
    Pulpstar said:

    Dominic Raab is closing down Boris Johnson all the time in the next Prime Minister and next Conservative leader as the Brexiteer candidate of choice on the Betfair market.

    If we see crossover, can we expect his price then to shorten very markedly indeed?

    I've got him as red in the book, and can't see the big short odds case for him. If Brexit works, May is going nowhere. If it doesn't then he's down with the Govt ship. Id have the big offices of state (Hunt, Javid) ahead of him.
    I don't particularly rate him to be honest. Looks like another false favourite to me
    I'm keeping him onside for now. I think the Raab tide has some way yet to run before it washes away again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,859
    rcs1000 said:

    One other other thing: watch for the results for West Virginia Third. Go Ojeda!

    Very bad poll for him recently by a company (Emerson) that previously had him ahead. I fear he is not going to make it which would be a shame.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 70,028
    edited November 6
    Pulpstar said:

    Dominic Raab is closing down Boris Johnson all the time in the next Prime Minister and next Conservative leader as the Brexiteer candidate of choice on the Betfair market.

    If we see crossover, can we expect his price then to shorten very markedly indeed?

    I've got him as red in the book, and can't see the big short odds case for him. If Brexit works, May is going nowhere. If it doesn't then he's down with the Govt ship. Id have the big offices of state (Hunt, Javid) ahead of him.
    I don't particularly rate him to be honest. Looks like another false favourite to me
    He's close to both Michael Gove and David Davis, I can see them both endorsing him

    If it happens then JohnO becomes the most influential PBer of all time.
  • Interesting.

    HISTORIC MOMENT, PUT YOUR OWN INTERESTS ASIDE, PUT THE COUNTRY'S INTERESTS FIRST AND BACK THIS DEAL.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326

    twitter.com/jdportes/status/1059878831362838530

    It's a fake? :o
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    House: +32 (Dems take control)
    Senate Rep + 1 (ND) (GOP retain control)

    I think the Republicans will take Missouri too, and have a good shot at Indiana. West Virginia, Florida and Montana will, I suspect, stay Democrat.

    On the other side of the equation, I think the Dems will probably sneak Nevada, and may also grab Arizona.

    My central assumption is R + 1 in the Senate, but I think R + 2 is nearly as likely.
    I think you're broadly right, but the Ds will just hold MO and ID. I am still hoping for an upset in TN or (please!) TX but I doubt it'll happen.
    That's the thing, isn't it?

    Is it possible that the Dems nab both Nevada and Arizona, while only losing ND? Absolutely. And both TN and TX are theoretically possible. Heck, Heidi could hold on in ND, and TN flip.

    It's not likely, but it's possible.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,300
    RobD said:

    twitter.com/jdportes/status/1059878831362838530

    It's a fake? :o
    There's fake and fake, I think it probably is government thinking but not yet its position
  • RobD said:

    twitter.com/jdportes/status/1059878831362838530

    It's a fake? :o
    Yes Senator Vreenak.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,300
    edited November 6
    Pulpstar said:

    Dominic Raab is closing down Boris Johnson all the time in the next Prime Minister and next Conservative leader as the Brexiteer candidate of choice on the Betfair market.

    If we see crossover, can we expect his price then to shorten very markedly indeed?

    I've got him as red in the book, and can't see the big short odds case for him. If Brexit works, May is going nowhere. If it doesn't then he's down with the Govt ship. Id have the big offices of state (Hunt, Javid) ahead of him.
    I don't particularly rate him to be honest. Looks like another false favourite to me
    He's 9.4 at the moment which I can understand. He's a decent shot if Tmay gets her deal done but resigns exhausted
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 22,859
    Although the polls close at these hours would I be right in saying that most of the interesting results will be TCTC for some hours afterwards? So getting up a little early and having a look then is still the best plan?

    Or are these super dodgy machines going to give us almost instantaneous fiction?
This discussion has been closed.