One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
Politically, if not technically, it actually makes sense. It'll be rebranded BritNet or something, get UJs plastered all over it and be a proud symbol of a nation standing alone while beset on all sides by foreign calumny. The current lot will be out of office by the time it's eventually apparent that it'll never work as desired and has no real application.
If the firm has recently applied for bankruptcy then it could be getting bought at bargain prices, that doesn't mean purchasing it is a mistake.
It will be completely inferior, in every possible way, to the six existing jurisdictional positioning systems unless it has billions more hosed at it. And even then probably not.
Having been shitcanned from Galileo and seen how much it would cost to do it properly this is the government making a cut price effort to tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl for the consumption of the easily gulled.
It's still a waste of £500m or so but hey what's that in the scheme of things.
- OneWeb isn't a navigation system - it provides data. There have been proposals *add* navigation to the system. - Galileo isn't a data providing system - it provides navigation. Only.
Anyone who doesn't understand that is Robert Peston level of ignorant.
Iridium is the classic example of a project that was worth buying from bankruptcy.
Did I say it is was a navigation system - I know what it was designed to do.
The issue is that the other networks are all backed by companies that can either already launch satellites into space or will in the very near future be able to do so.
Oneweb is supported by Boeing who should be able to do so but have failed to do so which is why it went bankrupt as a pre-requisite for long term survival of the network doesn't exist.. Solve that pre-requisite and the network has as much chance as Jeff and Elon's but unless you solve it Jeff and Elon's networks will have a serious advantage when it comes to long term viability and support.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
Scott thought it was critical of "BoZo" so he doesn't care about little issues like the truth or facts.
As others have noted, it's a shit deal.
If you start from the assumption that everything BoZo does is a giant fuckup, you won't go far wrong...
The funny thing is he has completely taken over your negative thoughts that you are utterly obsessed by him posting everything you can find that may help your cause but he still commands 42% plus and has an 80 seat majority
If the firm has recently applied for bankruptcy then it could be getting bought at bargain prices, that doesn't mean purchasing it is a mistake.
It will be completely inferior, in every possible way, to the six existing jurisdictional positioning systems unless it has billions more hosed at it. And even then probably not.
Having been shitcanned from Galileo and seen how much it would cost to do it properly this is the government making a cut price token effort to tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl for the consumption of the easily gulled.
It's shit, and I have little doubt that the purchase price (cheap or not) will provide a sunk cost argument to waste more money on it in due course.
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
That’s not quite accurate. She approved it without qualification. Either she read it and approved everything said in it or she didn’t read it. Either way, SKS was right to take action against her. RLB has form not challenging those making anti-Semitic comments in her presence and given what SKS said right from the start of his leadership she should have been intelligent enough to to realise that the wind had changed and there would no longer be a blind eye to the casual and unceasing anti-Semitism that had become routine in Corbyn’s Labour.
It seems RLB saw a famous, like minded constituent (possibly a friend?) in the news and fell over herself to tweet praise (diamond), then couldn't bring herself to retract it. We see on here how people lavish praise on those they agree with and feel unable to criticise them
Yes I think that's right, and people who insinuate that she is an anti-Semite herself are being pretty vile. Nevertheless, moving firmly on from the issue had to be the top priority, and this was how to do it. She hasn't lost her livelihood, only an unpaid position. If the Labour party started removing the whip over incidents like this, then it would be time to get angry.
It it not really about whether she is anti semitic or not. I doubt there are loads of senior Labourites who really want to discriminate against Jews. But there are loads who are completely happy to promote lazy casual stereotyping of Israel and its role in the world.
Having shadow cabinet members promote these messages creates a problem at the institutional level even if it is not generally there at the personal level.
But don't worry, the Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit says institutional racism is "perception rather than reality"
If the firm has recently applied for bankruptcy then it could be getting bought at bargain prices, that doesn't mean purchasing it is a mistake.
It will be completely inferior, in every possible way, to the six existing jurisdictional positioning systems unless it has billions more hosed at it. And even then probably not.
Having been shitcanned from Galileo and seen how much it would cost to do it properly this is the government making a cut price effort to tAkE bAcK cOnTrOl for the consumption of the easily gulled.
It's still a waste of £500m or so but hey what's that in the scheme of things.
- OneWeb isn't a navigation system - it provides data. There have been proposals *add* navigation to the system. - Galileo isn't a data providing system - it provides navigation. Only.
Anyone who doesn't understand that is Robert Peston level of ignorant.
Iridium is the classic example of a project that was worth buying from bankruptcy.
Did I say it is was a navigation system - I know what it was designed to do.
The issue is that the other networks are all backed by companies that can either already launch satellites into space or will in the very near future be able to do so.
Oneweb is supported by Boeing who should be able to do so but have failed to do so which is why it went bankrupt as a pre-requisite for long term survival of the network doesn't exist..
OneWeb has 74 satellites in orbit now. There are launch contracts in the works for the rest.
The question is the cost/Mb/sec for end users of the system.
A bankruptcy, Iridium style, may reduce the cost of the project enough to make it competitive again.
As to the navigation issue - are you aware of the Surrey Satellites proposal for navigation? As the people who saved Galileo, they know what they are talking about.
The Surrey Satellites idea for navigation was centred on an LEO constellation (piggybacking on other satellites where possible). It was rejected by the Gallileo consortium as not grand and expensive enough (aka not feeding the right parts of the industrial complex).
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
The Tories now win a majority of working class voters for example as uncontrolled immigration hits their wages and public services while the upper middle classes are shifting left liberal as they can get cheap nannies and plumbers and get high earning jobs abroad.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Well, anyone who thought Keir a bit drippy got a surprise. Clearly a new broom, and antisemitism will not be tolerated.
Might make for an interesting relationship with the Deputy Leader, RLB's housemate.
I disagree. He’s been brutal, and that’s politics. But he’s also been unjust and that’s more important.
At the end of the day RLB shared an Independent interview with a constituent of her’s. An MP should be able to do something like that without having their reputation trashed.
It’s not the sacking that matters. RLB will be remembered in history* as being sacked for forwarding an anti-Semitic article. I don’t think that’s right.
(* to the extent that she is at all)
That’s not quite accurate. She approved it without qualification. Either she read it and approved everything said in it or she didn’t read it. Either way, SKS was right to take action against her. RLB has form not challenging those making anti-Semitic comments in her presence and given what SKS said right from the start of his leadership she should have been intelligent enough to to realise that the wind had changed and there would no longer be a blind eye to the casual and unceasing anti-Semitism that had become routine in Corbyn’s Labour.
It seems RLB saw a famous, like minded constituent (possibly a friend?) in the news and fell over herself to tweet praise (diamond), then couldn't bring herself to retract it. We see on here how people lavish praise on those they agree with and feel unable to criticise them
Yes I think that's right, and people who insinuate that she is an anti-Semite herself are being pretty vile. Nevertheless, moving firmly on from the issue had to be the top priority, and this was how to do it. She hasn't lost her livelihood, only an unpaid position. If the Labour party started removing the whip over incidents like this, then it would be time to get angry.
It it not really about whether she is anti semitic or not. I doubt there are loads of senior Labourites who really want to discriminate against Jews. But there are loads who are completely happy to promote lazy casual stereotyping of Israel and its role in the world.
Having shadow cabinet members promote these messages creates a problem at the institutional level even if it is not generally there at the personal level.
But don't worry, the Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit says institutional racism is "perception rather than reality"
I would very much argue that institutional racism is very much real and present. Even if it were simply perception that in itself would still become real and problematic because impacted groups are still going to be adversely effected from it through a lack of trust and confidence and also as it legitimises racism in wider society. That a no 10 adviser is wrong on this is no reason not to call out problems elsewhere.
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
The Tories now win a majority of working class voters for example as uncontrolled immigration hits their wages and public services while the upper middle classes are shifting left liberal as they can get cheap nannies and plumbers and get high earning jobs abroad.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Im not here to defend any political party but perhaps the Greens? To be honest I dont really know who there members actually are, but they are probably not joining particularly for self interest as they are so unlikely to hold power.
My post wasnt criticising the Tories, it was pointing out that opponents can lose elections, just as much as parties can win them, perhaps more so.
This was a couple of weeks ago and things have moved a point or two in Biden's favour in the meantime, so he'd probably be ahead if the same pollsters re-polled it now.
Oh look - on a subject which is much more important than Long-Gone, it looks as if the government is doing what I and many others told them to do to clear the trial backlog.
I would be interested to see where the remove-juries-trial-balloon really came from
Micheal Howard said that a major duty of the Home Secretary was, in a crisis, to say NO to all the insane ideas that got pulled out of the cupboard at the Home Office. Apparently there are some people who think that China has the right idea on social control....
A quick perusal of the ideas floated after the Brighton Bombing gives you a Yikes! moment or 2.
Well if Priti turned 'no-juries' down she's more liberal than I gave her credit for. Of course the Justice chap will have been more involved.
The Home Office has nothing to do with it. It’s Buckland who came up with the proposal and Buckland who seems to have backed down.
I have no doubt that the pressure is coming from the Treasury which is simply unwilling to fund Justice properly.
It's not just Justice which is inadequately funded. The dead hand of the Treasury can be seen all over the NHS.
Thats absolutely true but any attempt to secure funding for Justice is met with derisory "filling the pockets of lawyers" type jibes. In the meantime our courts are physically collapsing and in increasing areas of the country there are no Legal Aid criminal solicitors or barristers available
I quite agree. It is destruction by deliberate neglect.
Oh look - on a subject which is much more important than Long-Gone, it looks as if the government is doing what I and many others told them to do to clear the trial backlog.
If it means they don;t end the right to trial by jury, amen.
I’d still keep the pressure up on them and a very close eye on this.
Attacks on jury trials come up with depressing regularity. Last time it was Blair. This time Johnson. Those in power don’t, for all the talk about it, really like ordinary people having their say.
We return to the theme! I defer to your expertise but hope you won't mind another question from a 'mug-punter'.
What exactly is wrong with cutting the jury to, say, ten? You could still have minority verdicts even if a couple of jurors went sick.
Like a lot of people who have done jury service I was struck by the fantastic waste of time involved in keeping a pool of suitable jurors hanging around waiting for some action. A 16% reduction would be some help and I cannot see it harming the administration of justice.
I answered this yesterday. 10 is not really that big a problem save for 2 issues:-
1. If a juror drops out you run the risk of a majority verdict or of not being able to get a decision at all because currently if you have 10 on a jury you can only have a verdict of 9:1. It is better to have a unanimous verdict. If you can’t get a verdict at all then the trial has to be run again so you are adding to the pressure and cost. 2. It does very little to free up capacity so does not address the real issue - the underfunding and closing of courts and having them idle when open. There were times last year when Southwark was 50% idle. That is a shocking waste.
That was an out and out lie, unless you can argue that "functioning" means it has demonstrably and clearly stopped the virus spreading in a country, rather the app itself is, erm, working which is what any ordinary person would think you meant by functioning.
Jimmy Wales has said he can have an app up and running via open source in a week.
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
The Tories now win a majority of working class voters for example as uncontrolled immigration hits their wages and public services while the upper middle classes are shifting left liberal as they can get cheap nannies and plumbers and get high earning jobs abroad.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Im not here to defend any political party but perhaps the Greens? To be honest I dont really know who there members actually are, but they are probably not joining particularly for self interest as they are so unlikely to hold power.
My post wasnt criticising the Tories, it was pointing out that opponents can lose elections, just as much as parties can win them, perhaps more so.
I doubt you will find many Green supporters who work for the oil industry or nuclear power industry or coal industry
What polling has Trump behind in Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina or West Virginia? Or indeed Iowa for that matter?
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Texas going Democrat would be a Portillo Moment. Possible but if it happens then the national result would be a foregone conclusion.
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
I agree to a point, but my belief is that elements of the far right (I consider UKIP/Brexit party to be the BNP in tweed) have taken over the Conservatives. Peter Bone, Mark Francois and the ridiculous Rees-Mogg would be very comfortable in UKIP, and I suspect if they were put on a lie detector and questioned their true beliefs would shock many. These people are just as far right as Corbyn is far left. They are a cancer in the Conservative Party and their ascendency, together with their foolhardy appointment of their puppet PM, is equally as much a reason for my resignation for the Conservative Party as my belief in the wrongheadedness of Brexit.
Corbyn has decades of unrepentant racism.
I dislike Bone, Francois and Rees-Mogg but don't think they have anything similar? And if they had shared the stage with and endorsed Holocaust Deniers etc then I think they'd have been kicked out of the party already.
I don't think Boris Johnson would kick any of them out of the party even if they goosestepped through the chamber of the Commons like Basil Fawlty, wearing stockings, suspenders and jackboots shouting racial obscenities. He is just too pathetically weak to do anything without the endorsement of non-member Dom.
Well if that happens we can talk.
The far left antisemitism - and zero tolerance of the far right by the Tories - has been ongoing for decades.
Would that "Zero Tolerance" extend to withdrawing the whip from any MP attending meetings of the "Traditional Britain Group" who, amongst other charming positions, has urged the deportation of Doreen Lawrence? Or suspending any group within the party that invited the TGB to its own events?
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
What polling has Trump behind in Indiana, Mississippi, South Carolina or West Virginia? Or indeed Iowa for that matter?
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Texas going Democrat would be a Portillo Moment. Possible but if it happens then the national result would be a foregone conclusion.
What with the rona and the protests, both of which are playing out quite differently in different places with different governors, I wouldn't be *astonished* if we got a big swing to Biden in TX/AZ and little or none in the rust belt. (Or vice versa.)
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
Why would Boris Johnson want Germany's help when they don't have a functioning app and the PB Tories insisted he was telling the truth?
Because although their system isn't fully functioning yet its close.
Is that an admission that ours is non-functional, or has CCHQ not approved that line yet
I have no clue what CCHQ have said but considering Hancock has said the UK's system isn't functioning right - and considering Johnson has said no country (which includes the UK) has a fully functioning one . . . I don't see why my comment would be an admission?
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
The Tories now win a majority of working class voters for example as uncontrolled immigration hits their wages and public services while the upper middle classes are shifting left liberal as they can get cheap nannies and plumbers and get high earning jobs abroad.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Im not here to defend any political party but perhaps the Greens? To be honest I dont really know who there members actually are, but they are probably not joining particularly for self interest as they are so unlikely to hold power.
My post wasnt criticising the Tories, it was pointing out that opponents can lose elections, just as much as parties can win them, perhaps more so.
I doubt you will find many Green supporters who work for the oil industry or nuclear power industry or coal industry
From the ads I see on tv the oil companies seem like they are investing tens of billions in green projects? There must be plenty of green pro nuclear types from the days when coal was dominant and before renewables. And as for the coal industry the last deep mine closed in 2015 so Ill give you that one, I wont find many green party members working down pit.
One of the reasons the Conservative Party is in power and not in infantile Opposition is because they don't give a damn about offense archaeology - just like the vast majority of the population.
One of the reasons this Conservative UKIP-lite Party is in power is because they do not give a d*mn about anyone other than themselves.
If that was the case the Tories would never win voters other than the richest and never get more than 10% of the vote and never win an election
You are assuming rationality on the part of voters and competent opponents. Neither assumption has been accurate for a long time!
The Tories now win a majority of working class voters for example as uncontrolled immigration hits their wages and public services while the upper middle classes are shifting left liberal as they can get cheap nannies and plumbers and get high earning jobs abroad.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Im not here to defend any political party but perhaps the Greens? To be honest I dont really know who there members actually are, but they are probably not joining particularly for self interest as they are so unlikely to hold power.
My post wasnt criticising the Tories, it was pointing out that opponents can lose elections, just as much as parties can win them, perhaps more so.
I doubt you will find many Green supporters who work for the oil industry or nuclear power industry or coal industry
From the ads I see on tv the oil companies seem like they are investing tens of billions in green projects? There must be plenty of green pro nuclear types from the days when coal was dominant and before renewables. And as for the coal industry the last deep mine closed in 2015 so Ill give you that one, I wont find many green party members working down pit.
There are still 3 coalmines working in the UK.
Green projects will not offset the oil revenues, especially as renewable energy companies are doing them anyway, the Green Party wants to close the nuclear power plants in the UK
Why would Boris Johnson want Germany's help when they don't have a functioning app and the PB Tories insisted he was telling the truth?
Because although their system isn't fully functioning yet its close.
The German Corona-Warn app is fully functioning. They warned over 30 people yesterday and advised that they should be tested.
That's not fully functioning.
30 people is a decent start but not that amazing when you consider we're doing approximately a quarter of a million tests a day.
For context - manually, the UK track and trace teams have contacted 113K people in 3 weeks to tell them to self-isolate. So an average of 5K+ people per day.
Yes although it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
Georgia is easier than Ohio and TX closer than Iowa.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
Why would Boris Johnson want Germany's help when they don't have a functioning app and the PB Tories insisted he was telling the truth?
Because although their system isn't fully functioning yet its close.
The German Corona-Warn app is fully functioning. They warned over 30 people yesterday and advised that they should be tested.
That's not fully functioning.
30 people is a decent start but not that amazing when you consider we're doing approximately a quarter of a million tests a day.
For context - manually, the UK track and trace teams have contacted 113K people in 3 weeks to tell them to self-isolate. So an average of 5K+ people per day.
*snap*
I know where I think time and money should be spent, and it ain't on a bloody app.
Oh look - on a subject which is much more important than Long-Gone, it looks as if the government is doing what I and many others told them to do to clear the trial backlog.
I would be interested to see where the remove-juries-trial-balloon really came from
Micheal Howard said that a major duty of the Home Secretary was, in a crisis, to say NO to all the insane ideas that got pulled out of the cupboard at the Home Office. Apparently there are some people who think that China has the right idea on social control....
A quick perusal of the ideas floated after the Brighton Bombing gives you a Yikes! moment or 2.
Well if Priti turned 'no-juries' down she's more liberal than I gave her credit for. Of course the Justice chap will have been more involved.
The Home Office has nothing to do with it. It’s Buckland who came up with the proposal and Buckland who seems to have backed down.
I have no doubt that the pressure is coming from the Treasury which is simply unwilling to fund Justice properly.
It's not just Justice which is inadequately funded. The dead hand of the Treasury can be seen all over the NHS.
Thats absolutely true but any attempt to secure funding for Justice is met with derisory "filling the pockets of lawyers" type jibes. In the meantime our courts are physically collapsing and in increasing areas of the country there are no Legal Aid criminal solicitors or barristers available
I quite agree. It is destruction by deliberate neglect.
Oh look - on a subject which is much more important than Long-Gone, it looks as if the government is doing what I and many others told them to do to clear the trial backlog.
If it means they don;t end the right to trial by jury, amen.
I’d still keep the pressure up on them and a very close eye on this.
Attacks on jury trials come up with depressing regularity. Last time it was Blair. This time Johnson. Those in power don’t, for all the talk about it, really like ordinary people having their say.
We return to the theme! I defer to your expertise but hope you won't mind another question from a 'mug-punter'.
What exactly is wrong with cutting the jury to, say, ten? You could still have minority verdicts even if a couple of jurors went sick.
Like a lot of people who have done jury service I was struck by the fantastic waste of time involved in keeping a pool of suitable jurors hanging around waiting for some action. A 16% reduction would be some help and I cannot see it harming the administration of justice.
I answered this yesterday. 10 is not really that big a problem save for 2 issues:-
1. If a juror drops out you run the risk of a majority verdict or of not being able to get a decision at all because currently if you have 10 on a jury you can only have a verdict of 9:1. It is better to have a unanimous verdict. If you can’t get a verdict at all then the trial has to be run again so you are adding to the pressure and cost. 2. It does very little to free up capacity so does not address the real issue - the underfunding and closing of courts and having them idle when open. There were times last year when Southwark was 50% idle. That is a shocking waste.
Sorry, I missed yesterday's reply. I do have a (small) life beyond PB.
Sounds like dropping to 10 is a bit of fine tuning that could be done and would probably help, but I can see it doesn't address the big issues.
Why would Boris Johnson want Germany's help when they don't have a functioning app and the PB Tories insisted he was telling the truth?
Because although their system isn't fully functioning yet its close.
The German Corona-Warn app is fully functioning. They warned over 30 people yesterday and advised that they should be tested.
That's not fully functioning.
30 people is a decent start but not that amazing when you consider we're doing approximately a quarter of a million tests a day.
For context - manually, the UK track and trace teams have contacted 113K people in 3 weeks to tell them to self-isolate. So an average of 5K+ people per day.
*snap*
I know where I think time and money should be spent, and it ain't on a bloody app.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
Thank you Sir. I might be completely wrong but I think there is a risk that people are putting money on what they want to be the outcome rather than what we know now.
They are by extension endorsing what she did. Withdraw the whip hehe.
We finally agree on something! 😂
I agreed further down thread on your comment on planning, but pleased don't get used to it. My comment on removal of the whip is highly ironic. If party leaders remove the whip of MPs for expressing inconvenient opinions then we are further down the road to dictatorship. Johnson/Cummings behaviour was that of the tin-pot dictator (with emphasis on the tin-pot). Most of the headbanging contingent of the Tory party that supported Johnson's inappropriate elevation had rebelled many times, including the unthinking man's hero, the forever braindead Ian Duncan Smith. Our system works best when governments and oppositions have an awkward squad.
Indeed. And I will agree here again, an awkward squad is useful. Hunt can play that role nicely now for us, especially as Chair of the Health Select Committee.
An antisemitic and racist squad is not.
I have no qualms purging them from the party - the Tories have ruthlessly purged anyone equivalent for decades who could be considered "far right" but the left have myopically believed the far right are the problem and the far left are not. The far left and far right are two cheeks of the same arse, they're both racist extremists and should have no place within either of our mainstream parties.
If the far left or far right wish to set up their own party they should be free to do so but I wouldn't want them in my party.
I agree to a point, but my belief is that elements of the far right (I consider UKIP/Brexit party to be the BNP in tweed) have taken over the Conservatives. Peter Bone, Mark Francois and the ridiculous Rees-Mogg would be very comfortable in UKIP, and I suspect if they were put on a lie detector and questioned their true beliefs would shock many. These people are just as far right as Corbyn is far left. They are a cancer in the Conservative Party and their ascendency, together with their foolhardy appointment of their puppet PM, is equally as much a reason for my resignation for the Conservative Party as my belief in the wrongheadedness of Brexit.
Corbyn has decades of unrepentant racism.
I dislike Bone, Francois and Rees-Mogg but don't think they have anything similar? And if they had shared the stage with and endorsed Holocaust Deniers etc then I think they'd have been kicked out of the party already.
I don't think Boris Johnson would kick any of them out of the party even if they goosestepped through the chamber of the Commons like Basil Fawlty, wearing stockings, suspenders and jackboots shouting racial obscenities. He is just too pathetically weak to do anything without the endorsement of non-member Dom.
Well if that happens we can talk.
The far left antisemitism - and zero tolerance of the far right by the Tories - has been ongoing for decades.
Would that "Zero Tolerance" extend to withdrawing the whip from any MP attending meetings of the "Traditional Britain Group" who, amongst other charming positions, has urged the deportation of Doreen Lawrence? Or suspending any group within the party that invited the TGB to its own events?
I am afraid he is either in denial, or is just not aware because he has little dealings with the grassroots of the Conservative Party. The once dregs of the party that used to be a minority are now the majority. I doubt that the anti-Semitism of the Labour left, vile though it is, is any more prevalent than the xenophobic nationalism and often unconcealed racism and homophobia that typifies the Brexit obsessed wing (which is now the dominant wing) of the Conservative Party
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Why would Boris Johnson want Germany's help when they don't have a functioning app and the PB Tories insisted he was telling the truth?
Because although their system isn't fully functioning yet its close.
The German Corona-Warn app is fully functioning. They warned over 30 people yesterday and advised that they should be tested.
That's not fully functioning.
30 people is a decent start but not that amazing when you consider we're doing approximately a quarter of a million tests a day.
For context - manually, the UK track and trace teams have contacted 113K people in 3 weeks to tell them to self-isolate. So an average of 5K+ people per day.
*snap*
I know where I think time and money should be spent, and it ain't on a bloody app.
Why not both?
In an ideal world where the app wasn't diverting attention from the more important issues, and perhaps leading us down a path to adopt high-tech solutions when pen and paper might suffice, then I'd have no problem with the app. At the moment though I think that given the app's likely low effectiveness it is probably doing some net harm, by taking the focus off of low-tech approaches that work. Get track and trace working well and then worry about an app.
Given that border formalities are pretty fundamental to any sort of divergence, it's incredible how poorly-developed the UK's plan to manage them are. I get that passport colours, immigration points scales and talking to Australians about biscuits are more fun, but without a system to track what comes in and out, none of the rest of it is going to work.
Is it?
And the most optimistic conclusion is that, in about November, some EU official will whip out a "This Agreement Guarantees The United Kingdoms's Sovereign Right To Do What It Wants, Including The Right To Freely Align For A Bargain £300 Million A Week In Which Case We Don't Need Border Checks" plan.
And Boris will have the nerve and verve to sell it as a win.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
We are not talking about the 2018 elections, we are talking about now. Where is the evidence now - apart from polls which, at the state level at least, are all over the place - that there is a mass desertion from Trump?
Thank you Sir. I might be completely wrong but I think there is a risk that people are putting money on what they want to be the outcome rather than what we know now.
That's not a sensible way to describe people betting at odds that still give a less than a 60% chance to someone leading by 10 points.
I take the point that state polling is tricky and you shouldn't rely on it too much, but the state polling is currently weighing quite heavily in Trump's favour not Biden's, since it's pointing to an even bigger electoral college handicap for Biden than there was for Hillary.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
We are not talking about the 2018 elections, we are talking about now. Where is the evidence now - apart from polls which, at the state level at least, are all over the place - that there is a mass desertion from Trump?
You were talking about "what happens when people vote"! The Midterms were the last time that millions of people voted - and it was before Coronavirus and numerous recent Trump idiocies. Of course "apart from polls" there can't be much "evidence". So if they are "all over the place" maybe we should look at the trend. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/ Biden 50.6%, Trump 41.1%
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
superb post, to which I would add, its the economy, stupid.
Right now we are probably at the low point for Americans who do not have the furlough or welfare support of Brits.
Unemployment is meant to be lagging indicator, according to economists, and right now it is still awful, although other indicators are better.
Its quite possible that some of the support for Biden is general dissatisfaction with life, that could quickly evaporate if things turn around in the employment picture.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
Thank you Sir. I might be completely wrong but I think there is a risk that people are putting money on what they want to be the outcome rather than what we know now.
It's a well argued cautionary post, Ed.
Nevertheless I personally think it's getting beyond the Donald now. I have an expat Brit friend living in Florida who is an irrepressible Trump supporter and gives me a bit of a local insight. He will vote Trump again. In fact if Trump gets just two votes in November one of those will be his. However there has been a noticeable change in his tone lately. He's stopped listening to news programmes for a start. 'They're all fake.'
The headline says "Four years after Brexit, support for the EU surges in Britain"
However, if you scroll down it says "The latest data was gathered while the UK was still negotiating its exit from the EU as a member state."
This is a really shoddy article as it pretends that social research is the same as an opinion poll.
Just to explain the difference:
Market research is designed to find out what is happening now and to help solve clients' business problems today.
Social research is designed to be retrospective. It is often led by academics and is very thorough but also really slow.
For example, a YouGov poll will interview 2,000 respondents and turn around in a week. The British Election Study collects data from 30,000 respondents (some face-to-face) but takes a year or more to prepare (the BES for the 2019 election is expected out later this year)
So the ESS data represents a point time, most likely when May was still PM, if it was collected in late 2018 and 2019 (I would have dig deeper to find the exact fieldwork dates in the UK). Trying to present it as a change in opinion due to coronavirus is utter drivel.
Given that border formalities are pretty fundamental to any sort of divergence, it's incredible how poorly-developed the UK's plan to manage them are. I get that passport colours, immigration points scales and talking to Australians about biscuits are more fun, but without a system to track what comes in and out, none of the rest of it is going to work.
Is it?
And the most optimistic conclusion is that, in about November, some EU official will whip out a "This Agreement Guarantees The United Kingdoms's Sovereign Right To Do What It Wants, Including The Right To Freely Align For A Bargain £300 Million A Week In Which Case We Don't Need Border Checks" plan.
And Boris will have the nerve and verve to sell it as a win.
More likely that it's No Deal. Catastrophe on food and meds in Jan/Feb/March. Attempt to blame the virus fails and Johnson gone by next summer with a health issue.
The headline says "Four years after Brexit, support for the EU surges in Britain"
However, if you scroll down it says "The latest data was gathered while the UK was still negotiating its exit from the EU as a member state."
This is a really shoddy article as it pretends that social research is the same as an opinion poll.
Just to explain the difference:
Market research is designed to find out what is happening now and to help solve clients' business problems today.
Social research is designed to be retrospective. It is often led by academics and is very thorough but also really slow.
For example, a YouGov poll will interview 2,000 respondents and turn around in a week. The British Election Study collects data from 30,000 respondents (some face-to-face) but takes a year or more to prepare (the BES for the 2019 election is expected out later this year)
So the ESS data represents a point time, most likely when May was still PM, if it was collected in late 2018 and 2019 (I would have dig deeper to find the exact fieldwork dates in the UK). Trying to present it as a change in opinion due to coronavirus is utter drivel.
Sums up journalism today quite nicely. No need for accuracy or nuance so long as we can get a clickbait headline.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
superb post, to which I would add, its the economy, stupid.
Right now we are probably at the low point for Americans who do not have the furlough or welfare support of Brits.
Unemployment is meant to be lagging indicator, according to economists, and right now it is still awful, although other indicators are better.
Its quite possible that some of the support for Biden is general dissatisfaction with life, that could quickly evaporate if things turn around in the employment picture.
If the virus crisis doesn't ease, the economy is stuffed anyway. He's not doing anything to tackle the virus, so unless he gets lucky and it abates anyway the economy is not going to play well for him.
Could happen. I hope it does, for the sake of all the Americans living in the country. Looking unlikely though.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) .
If it is a 10% national blowout and Texas flips, you'd probably get one or two complete surprise Biden states also - places where neither side puts much resources in, and there aren't many polls. Admittedly, these won't make much difference to EV totals, unless perhaps you're betting on bands. Maybe just one for a fun bet.
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
I'm going to put my "Trump will win" hat on again but, given this is a betting website and there seems to be a growing consensus that you need to put your money on Biden now, both for President and in the swing states before the odds inevitably tighten, just stop and process what we know. That might be the right call but there you could also end up blowing your money.
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
Great post, Im far from convinced you are right, but its very well argued and informative.
superb post, to which I would add, its the economy, stupid.
Right now we are probably at the low point for Americans who do not have the furlough or welfare support of Brits.
Unemployment is meant to be lagging indicator, according to economists, and right now it is still awful, although other indicators are better.
Its quite possible that some of the support for Biden is general dissatisfaction with life, that could quickly evaporate if things turn around in the employment picture.
That's not quite right. Americans received about $300bn in cheques from the Federal government in April. The unemployed are also getting an additional $600/week if they are unemployed. Household incomes actually went up over 10% in April (although they are likely to have fallen in May, data published shortly). Plus a lot of Americans are being kept in their jobs by the Payroll Protection Programme. Right now much of the federal govt support goes in July/August, although some might get extended. I wouldn't be too confident that consumers in the US are going to be feeling a whole lot better come November than they are now, in other words.
On beaches would it be really wrong to go for online ticketing for the most popular? A way for councils to raise some much needed money, reduce overcrowding and keep them open.
At one level I really dont like the idea, its clearly unfair on those without much cash, on another it seems a practical solution during an unusual crisis that is unlikely to be repeated.
The headline says "Four years after Brexit, support for the EU surges in Britain"
However, if you scroll down it says "The latest data was gathered while the UK was still negotiating its exit from the EU as a member state."
This is a really shoddy article as it pretends that social research is the same as an opinion poll.
Just to explain the difference:
Market research is designed to find out what is happening now and to help solve clients' business problems today.
Social research is designed to be retrospective. It is often led by academics and is very thorough but also really slow.
For example, a YouGov poll will interview 2,000 respondents and turn around in a week. The British Election Study collects data from 30,000 respondents (some face-to-face) but takes a year or more to prepare (the BES for the 2019 election is expected out later this year)
So the ESS data represents a point time, most likely when May was still PM, if it was collected in late 2018 and 2019 (I would have dig deeper to find the exact fieldwork dates in the UK). Trying to present it as a change in opinion due to coronavirus is utter drivel.
Sums up journalism today quite nicely. No need for accuracy or nuance so long as we can get a clickbait headline.
Which can be breathlessly pounced upon by the usual suspects
Comments
His first step is to buy bankrupt assets of a system that is explicitly NOT positioning.
And the fanbois are cheering him on...
The issue is that the other networks are all backed by companies that can either already launch satellites into space or will in the very near future be able to do so.
Oneweb is supported by Boeing who should be able to do so but have failed to do so which is why it went bankrupt as a pre-requisite for long term survival of the network doesn't exist.. Solve that pre-requisite and the network has as much chance as Jeff and Elon's but unless you solve it Jeff and Elon's networks will have a serious advantage when it comes to long term viability and support.
The question is the cost/Mb/sec for end users of the system.
A bankruptcy, Iridium style, may reduce the cost of the project enough to make it competitive again.
As to the navigation issue - are you aware of the Surrey Satellites proposal for navigation? As the people who saved Galileo, they know what they are talking about.
The Surrey Satellites idea for navigation was centred on an LEO constellation (piggybacking on other satellites where possible). It was rejected by the Gallileo consortium as not grand and expensive enough (aka not feeding the right parts of the industrial complex).
But you do you...
I note Trump's last poll in Montana was only +6 in April. Tiny sample of course, and state polls can be way inaccurate, but just an example.
Missouri maybe one to keep an eye on.
Here's some selected 'deep' targets for Biden that he could get with a 5% UNS or so.
N Carolina 49.83% 46.17% {Trump + 3.66}
Georgia 50.44% 45.35% {Trump + 5.09}
Ohio 51.69% 43.56% {Trump + 8.13}
Texas 52.23% 43.24% {Trump + 8.99}
Iowa 51.15% 41.74% {Trump + 9.41}
---
Indiana 56.47% 37.46% {Trump + 19.01}
Of course Biden doesn't need any of those. It's either Florida + at least one of {WI, MI, PA} or a sweep of {WI, MI, PA} that's needed for Biden.
The public sector mainly votes Labour as it is more likely that Labour will expand public sector jobs and increase public sector wages, funded and supported by higher taxes and increased regulation on the private sector, the majority of whose workers vote Tory.
Name one party whose core base does not have some self interest?
Exceptions have been made for the UK before.
Only Denmark has an opt out from the Euro, which we got at the same time
https://twitter.com/fidelmacook/status/1276474454076526592?s=20
My post wasnt criticising the Tories, it was pointing out that opponents can lose elections, just as much as parties can win them, perhaps more so.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/iowa/
This was a couple of weeks ago and things have moved a point or two in Biden's favour in the meantime, so he'd probably be ahead if the same pollsters re-polled it now.
Also although these are a bit old, look at the Morning Consult Trump approval numbers:
https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
They have Trump on -5, at a time when he was at -1 in PA and +3 in FL. Among other things, Iowa hasn't had a fun trade war.
1. If a juror drops out you run the risk of a majority verdict or of not being able to get a decision at all because currently if you have 10 on a jury you can only have a verdict of 9:1. It is better to have a unanimous verdict. If you can’t get a verdict at all then the trial has to be run again so you are adding to the pressure and cost.
2. It does very little to free up capacity so does not address the real issue - the underfunding and closing of courts and having them idle when open. There were times last year when Southwark was 50% idle. That is a shocking waste.
Jimmy Wales has said he can have an app up and running via open source in a week.
Bulgaria and Romania have been in the EU for 14 years now and are no closer to being the Euro or Schengen.
Difference is he was running as the opposition not the incumbent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_and_the_euro
Romania is due to join the Euro in 2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_and_the_euro
https://twitter.com/SteveMillerOC/status/1275892961360805888
Oh...actually that would be the California Democrats.
https://www.270towin.com/
First of all the state polls in 2016 were sh1t. Only 1 poll had Trump taking PA; only one poll had Trump taking MI - in fact, one of the polls published just before the election had Clinton ahead at +20. There was no poll that had Trump taking WI. Much has been said about how the national polls got it "right" but the individual state polling was crap. Even the national ones had flaws - and the numbers changed dramatically from the summer to November.
Second of all, there should be some warning signals in the recent polls themselves. We have had Biden leads for Michigan of anywhere from +1 to +11 in the past few days. Both can't be right. WI leads have been +4 to +11. And in many of the polls, there seem to be a large number of Don't Knows - are they really DK or worried to say they will vote for Trump, which is what we had in 2016?
Then look at some of the Senate polls in some of these states where the Republicans seem to be doing better than Trump (eg GA). There could be several reasons for that - one could be a return to ballot splitting, which seems unlikely; another could be that individual senators are more popular than Trump, which is possible; but a third possibility is that voters feel more comfortable telling pollsters they are voting for s Republican Senator where there is not the same embarrassment as saying you are voting for Trump.
Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote. I've been accused of cherry picking but, put simply, there is no way that what we are told about white suburban voters deserting Trump en masse is showing up in recent results. There have been 4 special Congressional elections since the start of the CV crisis (MD, WI, CA, NY). So far, it is Democrats 1, Republicans 3 with the GOP picking up a seat. In the two most white suburban seats of those four (CA 25 and NY 27), the Republicans took a seat from the Democrats by +12 and kept their one in NY with an increased share of the vote over 2016. Yes, there is low turnout etc but where is this supposed revolt against Trump?????
As I said, if you want to bet against Trump, wait for closer to the election and certainly don't just go on a bunch of polls which, at best, don't have a great track record (at least at the state level) and, at worst, are just downright wrong.
30 people is a decent start but not that amazing when you consider we're doing approximately a quarter of a million tests a day.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/25/uk/uk-supports-eu-four-years-after-brexit-intl-gbr/index.html
Green projects will not offset the oil revenues, especially as renewable energy companies are doing them anyway, the Green Party wants to close the nuclear power plants in the UK
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PPP_Release_ME_101519.pdf
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/biden-leads-or-is-statistically-tied-with-trump-in-key-battleground-states-86037061526
I know where I think time and money should be spent, and it ain't on a bloody app.
Sounds like dropping to 10 is a bit of fine tuning that could be done and would probably help, but I can see it doesn't address the big issues.
2018 Midterms
Democrats: 59,525,244 (53.2% of total popular vote)
Republicans: 50,516,570 (45.1%)
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/2018-midterms-democratic-wave/index.html
Is it?
And the most optimistic conclusion is that, in about November, some EU official will whip out a "This Agreement Guarantees The United Kingdoms's Sovereign Right To Do What It Wants, Including The Right To Freely Align For A Bargain £300 Million A Week In Which Case We Don't Need Border Checks" plan.
And Boris will have the nerve and verve to sell it as a win.
I take the point that state polling is tricky and you shouldn't rely on it too much, but the state polling is currently weighing quite heavily in Trump's favour not Biden's, since it's pointing to an even bigger electoral college handicap for Biden than there was for Hillary.
Blimey, Trump has managed to get Ted Cruz arguing in favour of a Gov't initiative. (Go to 3 minutes in)
The Midterms were the last time that millions of people voted - and it was before Coronavirus and numerous recent Trump idiocies.
Of course "apart from polls" there can't be much "evidence". So if they are "all over the place" maybe we should look at the trend.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
Biden 50.6%, Trump 41.1%
Right now we are probably at the low point for Americans who do not have the furlough or welfare support of Brits.
Unemployment is meant to be lagging indicator, according to economists, and right now it is still awful, although other indicators are better.
Its quite possible that some of the support for Biden is general dissatisfaction with life, that could quickly evaporate if things turn around in the employment picture.
Nevertheless I personally think it's getting beyond the Donald now. I have an expat Brit friend living in Florida who is an irrepressible Trump supporter and gives me a bit of a local insight. He will vote Trump again. In fact if Trump gets just two votes in November one of those will be his. However there has been a noticeable change in his tone lately. He's stopped listening to news programmes for a start. 'They're all fake.'
Not a good sign.
The headline says "Four years after Brexit, support for the EU surges in Britain"
However, if you scroll down it says "The latest data was gathered while the UK was still negotiating its exit from the EU as a member state."
This is a really shoddy article as it pretends that social research is the same as an opinion poll.
Just to explain the difference:
Market research is designed to find out what is happening now and to help solve clients' business problems today.
Social research is designed to be retrospective. It is often led by academics and is very thorough but also really slow.
For example, a YouGov poll will interview 2,000 respondents and turn around in a week.
The British Election Study collects data from 30,000 respondents (some face-to-face) but takes a year or more to prepare (the BES for the 2019 election is expected out later this year)
So the ESS data represents a point time, most likely when May was still PM, if it was collected in late 2018 and 2019 (I would have dig deeper to find the exact fieldwork dates in the UK). Trying to present it as a change in opinion due to coronavirus is utter drivel.
Sunak picks up the pieces.
Edit: His re-election ?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?cid=rrpromo
In terms of approval indicating reelection it's the only straw I can see Trump has right now.
Could happen. I hope it does, for the sake of all the Americans living in the country. Looking unlikely though.
Yes, of course black swans do occasionally appear but he actually needs one now.
At one level I really dont like the idea, its clearly unfair on those without much cash, on another it seems a practical solution during an unusual crisis that is unlikely to be repeated.