From that: "But some people have dismissed Biden’s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election (Clinton, obviously, ended up losing to Trump). While this is true, Clinton’s lead was much smaller. Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now."
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) .
...Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote...
Yes, that's what I'm looking for right now. I'm particularly looking forward to finally getting the full Kentucky and New York primary vote figures.
Sure Kentucky isn't going blue any time soon but the state polling has Biden supposedly doing better than Clinton in many deep-red states. A significant fraction of the electorate has voted this time around meaning the primary should be more representative of likely voters in November. There could be a big difference between election day voting and absentee but extrapolating from election day the numbers are not impressive at all. Similarly, New York doesn't seem great at the moment.
Georgia, on the other hand, was good for Biden, though not terrible for Trump either. It could be a case of Biden enthusing Black voters, relative to Clinton at least, while others are more ambivalent.
From that: "But some people have dismissed Biden’s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election (Clinton, obviously, ended up losing to Trump). While this is true, Clinton’s lead was much smaller. Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now."
A bigger polling error is needed. But I don't know that it's much unlikelier. If the polls are garbage, they're garbage. It is plausible that they might (once again) miss a population who vote this time but normally don't. IMO betters need to factor that in.
Though over 50% in none of them and only 2% up on Hillary at most in all of them
2% up on HC would do just fine for Joe, no? No way the EC could give Donald a freak win with that kind of a popular vote, I believe.
Not sure I follow HYFUD's maths.
Florida - won by Trump by 1% - Biden leads by 9% in this poll North Carolina - won by Trump by 4% - Biden leads by 2% Georgia - won by Trump by 5% - Biden leads by 2% Texas - won by Trump by 9% - Biden leads by 1%
So Biden leads Hillary's performance by about 7 percentage points over Trump (a swing of 3.5%).
Frankly they should close the beaches and be done with it
A mass brawl at my local beach in Ogmore by Sea, that has made the news.
There is a beach near me with direct access via a ladder down a vertical cliff face. There is a half mile walk from the road to the beach. Yesterday I counted 30 cars parked on the road, a rather narrow lane. And we are technically in lockdown.
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.
It might be true that the technical aspects of the app are functioning as well as can be expected given the restrictions of the Google/Apple system.
The app isn't delivering much in the way of actual benefits - ie it isn't functioning in the broad sense. The number of downloads suggest only about 2% of interactions in Germany will be logged, and there's no way of evaluating whether the logged interactions were actually dangerous.
Though over 50% in none of them and only 2% up on Hillary at most in all of them
2% up on HC would do just fine for Joe, no? No way the EC could give Donald a freak win with that kind of a popular vote, I believe.
But it could easily swing back, Biden needs to be well over 50% to be safe, otherwise undecideds could go back to Trump
Of course, but what's going to make it swing back - the Economy? The virus disappearing? BLM pissing everyone off?
Yes, of course black swans do occasionally appear but he actually needs one now.
If Biden is still not well over 50% that means a lot of voters are likely still silent Trump voters.
Plus if he adds some of the 3% who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 Trump gets to 48% or 49% if he wins back all his 2016 vote even if Biden holds all the Hillary vote.
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.
Trump seems to be positively on the side of the virus, literally saying nothing and playing golf would help in the fight against Covid-19.
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
Well, they've only got a few days left to save us from ourselves, supposedly.
From that: "But some people have dismissed Biden’s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election (Clinton, obviously, ended up losing to Trump). While this is true, Clinton’s lead was much smaller. Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now."
A bigger polling error is needed. But I don't know that it's much unlikelier. If the polls are garbage, they're garbage. It is plausible that they might (once again) miss a population who vote this time but normally don't. IMO betters need to factor that in.
538 said that Trump had a 29% chance of winning in 2016. Toss a coin 3 times, Clinton wins twice and Trump once. Bearing in mind that Clinton won nearly 3 million votes more than Trump and he won 3 States by tiny majorities that was not a huge failure. Certainly not garbage. Trump was lucky last time. 'Do you feel lucky, Trump?'
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%
Well, if we are going to take the 2018 midterms as a guide, then look at the 2010 mid-terms: Republicans 55.6%, Democrats 44.4% . Not exactly a great guide to 2012 was it?
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
Biden on Coronavirus - 120 millions deaths. He's going to contrive to lose this somehow.
Against a normal opponent that kind of gaff might matter, but Trump does that kind of thing so often Joe gets a pass.
My favorite Trump misspeak was the promise to build a wall around Arizona. He meant of course Mexico. Easy mistake to make.
Joe can relax.
People who will no longer vote Trump because he is an idiot might also be reluctant to turn out for a rival who seems demented. I expect lots of Trump adverts on this theme in the autumn. If he can't get his own vote out, he can try to stop Biden's.
Though over 50% in none of them and only 2% up on Hillary at most in all of them
2% up on HC would do just fine for Joe, no? No way the EC could give Donald a freak win with that kind of a popular vote, I believe.
But it could easily swing back, Biden needs to be well over 50% to be safe, otherwise undecideds could go back to Trump
Of course, but what's going to make it swing back - the Economy? The virus disappearing? BLM pissing everyone off?
Yes, of course black swans do occasionally appear but he actually needs one now.
If Biden is still not well over 50% that means a lot of voters are likely still silent Trump voters.
Plus if he adds some of the 3% who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 Trump gets to 48% or 49% if he wins back all his 2016 vote even if Biden holds all the Hillary vote.
That is an important point from HYFUD that there is a 3.8% bloc that voted Libertarian or McMullin where some could come back to Trump. In several states, such as NV, that would flip it to Trump all other things being equal
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) .
...Finally - and to me the most important - look at what happens when people vote...
Yes, that's what I'm looking for right now. I'm particularly looking forward to finally getting the full Kentucky and New York primary vote figures.
Sure Kentucky isn't going blue any time soon but the state polling has Biden supposedly doing better than Clinton in many deep-red states. A significant fraction of the electorate has voted this time around meaning the primary should be more representative of likely voters in November. There could be a big difference between election day voting and absentee but extrapolating from election day the numbers are not impressive at all. Similarly, New York doesn't seem great at the moment.
Georgia, on the other hand, was good for Biden, though not terrible for Trump either. It could be a case of Biden enthusing Black voters, relative to Clinton at least, while others are more ambivalent.
I think Georgia is an interesting one, it is trending more like NC and so more swing territory. I think 2024 could be interesting.
Minnesota hasn't really being mentioned much but that is swinging Republican. Interesting to see what happens this time
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
Except the objection is to the statement that data was compiled while we were negotiating. That could mean yesterday. We need to know more before we can dismiss the ESS for inconvenient findings.
Controversial interview, cut off by Sky. The revealing take is that the police don't really bother trying to stop knife crime in black neighbourhoods anymore as it is more than their officers jobs are worth to risk accusations of racism
Biden on Coronavirus - 120 millions deaths. He's going to contrive to lose this somehow.
Against a normal opponent that kind of gaff might matter, but Trump does that kind of thing so often Joe gets a pass.
My favorite Trump misspeak was the promise to build a wall around Arizona. He meant of course Mexico. Easy mistake to make.
Joe can relax.
It was the Trump side's usage of Hillary Clinton's collapse after the 911 commemoration that lost her the election. Trump can hardly get much out of saying that Biden is losing it mentally. Trump is the guy who doesn't understand the difference between having the coronavirus and spreading it, as evidenced by how he scoffed at the idea that a child who only gets the sniffles from it and who quickly recovers should be logged as a case. If Biden and Trump ever debate each other, Biden will whup Trump's arse to kingdom come, whether Biden forgets the word for something or not.
Which isn't to say Biden looks so great. But Trump's problem is that he's getting no boosts from anything he himself does or says right now. He needs some - and fast. Otherwise it's hurtle down the plughole time. He tried to put blood on the streets outside his palace, and failed. He tried to launch his campaign, and failed. He tried to sue his niece [*], and his first application failed. He needs something. Any ideas for what?
(*) I haven't looked closely at his brother Robert whose name the application was in, but it seems to me to have Donald's fingerprints all over it. It's similar to the ludicrous report written by a medic stating he would be the healthiest president ever. This time, the application went to a court in Queens because that's where his father's probate case had been dealt with, even though it's about an NDA and zero to do with estate distribution. Moreover the requested order was for a ban on Mary saying anything about her relationship with her family, which would be far broader than what, according to the application itself, she agreed in the NDA not to blab about. So ... ignore the first amendment, and for what reason exactly? In short the application is full of shit. And I wouldn't blame Robert and Donald's sister Maryanne either, a former judge in a federal appeals court. Nope. Smells like Donald all right. Watch this space. His back is to the wall and he's flailing.
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.
Controversial interview, cut off by Sky. The revealing take is that the police don't really bother trying to stop knife crime in black neighbourhoods anymore as it is more than their officers jobs are worth to risk accusations of racism
Hurley says it's about "people of West African heritage". How many black British people whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were from Jamaica or elsewhere in the West Indies have any cultural "heritage" from West Africa except in the minds of white racists? Hardly any.
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.
Mr Ed highlights every shred of evidence that favours Trump and ignores any that doesn't. It is informative but I honestly wouldn't use it as a basis for betting.
The idea that because the polls got it wrong in 2016 they will again sounds exactly like the Corbynista rallying cry in the run up to last December.
Looking at the Special elections, the turnouts were low and again it sounds like those that tell us all the polls are wrong because the LDs have just had a 20% swing in a by-election somewhere or other.
Trump lost the vote in 2016 but was very fortunate in the way the votes panned out in each state. He would be fortunate to repeat that trick.
The question I ask myself is who is going to vote for Trump this year who didn't in 2016?
It's pretty clear that Biden is clearly ahead right now but most of us accept that things could change over the next four months.
Controversial interview, cut off by Sky. The revealing take is that the police don't really bother trying to stop knife crime in black neighbourhoods anymore as it is more than their officers jobs are worth to risk accusations of racism
Hurley says it's about "people of West African heritage". How many black British people whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were from Jamaica or elsewhere in the West Indies have any cultural "heritage" from West Africa except in the minds of white racists? Hardly any.
By all means quibble about terms of address to prevent the truth being known. Its what the left have been doing for decades.
Biden on Coronavirus - 120 millions deaths. He's going to contrive to lose this somehow.
Against a normal opponent that kind of gaff might matter, but Trump does that kind of thing so often Joe gets a pass.
My favorite Trump misspeak was the promise to build a wall around Arizona. He meant of course Mexico. Easy mistake to make.
Joe can relax.
It was the Trump side's usage of Hillary Clinton's collapse after the 911 commemoration that lost her the election. Trump can hardly get much out of saying that Biden is losing it mentally. Trump is the guy who doesn't understand the difference between having the coronavirus and spreading it, as evidenced by how he scoffed at the idea that a child who only gets the sniffles from it and who quickly recovers should be logged as a case. If Biden and Trump ever debate each other, Biden will whup Trump's arse to kingdom come, whether Biden forgets the word for something or not.
Which isn't to say Biden looks so great. But Trump's problem is that he's getting no boosts from anything he himself does or says right now. He needs some - and fast. Otherwise it's hurtle down the plughole time. He tried to put blood on the streets outside his palace, and failed. He tried to launch his campaign, and failed. He tried to sue his niece [*], and his first application failed. He needs something. Any ideas for what?
(*) I haven't looked closely at his brother Robert whose name the application was in, but it seems to me to have Donald's fingerprints all over it. It's similar to the ludicrous report written by a medic stating he would be the healthiest president ever. This time, the application went to a court in Queens because that's where his father's probate case had been dealt with, even though it's about an NDA and zero to do with estate distribution. Moreover the requested order was for a ban on Mary saying anything about her relationship with her family, which would be far broader than what, according to the application itself, she agreed in the NDA not to blab about. So ... ignore the first amendment, and for what reason exactly? In short the application is full of shit. And I wouldn't blame Robert and Donald's sister Maryanne either, a former judge in a federal appeals court. Nope. Smells like Donald all right. Watch this space. His back is to the wall and he's flailing.
''which isn;t to say Biden looks so great''
I've seen better looking cardboard cut outs. Why did he agree to those debates?
Though over 50% in none of them and only 2% up on Hillary at most in all of them
2% up on HC would do just fine for Joe, no? No way the EC could give Donald a freak win with that kind of a popular vote, I believe.
But it could easily swing back, Biden needs to be well over 50% to be safe, otherwise undecideds could go back to Trump
Of course, but what's going to make it swing back - the Economy? The virus disappearing? BLM pissing everyone off?
Yes, of course black swans do occasionally appear but he actually needs one now.
If Biden is still not well over 50% that means a lot of voters are likely still silent Trump voters.
Plus if he adds some of the 3% who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 Trump gets to 48% or 49% if he wins back all his 2016 vote even if Biden holds all the Hillary vote.
Comments
My favorite Trump misspeak was the promise to build a wall around Arizona. He meant of course Mexico. Easy mistake to make.
Joe can relax.
Think of it as giving Darwin a helping hand.
"But some people have dismissed Biden’s lead by pointing out that Hillary Clinton also led in most polls of the 2016 election (Clinton, obviously, ended up losing to Trump). While this is true, Clinton’s lead was much smaller. Applying our current polling-average methodology to 2016 polls, Clinton led national polls by an average of about 4.0 points four months before the 2016 election, and 3.8 points on Election Day itself. So while a normal-sized polling error was enough to throw the 2016 election to Trump, it would take a much bigger — and much unlikelier — polling error for Trump to be ahead right now."
Sure Kentucky isn't going blue any time soon but the state polling has Biden supposedly doing better than Clinton in many deep-red states. A significant fraction of the electorate has voted this time around meaning the primary should be more representative of likely voters in November. There could be a big difference between election day voting and absentee but extrapolating from election day the numbers are not impressive at all. Similarly, New York doesn't seem great at the moment.
Georgia, on the other hand, was good for Biden, though not terrible for Trump either. It could be a case of Biden enthusing Black voters, relative to Clinton at least, while others are more ambivalent.
If the polls are garbage, they're garbage. It is plausible that they might (once again) miss a population who vote this time but normally don't. IMO betters need to factor that in.
Florida - won by Trump by 1% - Biden leads by 9% in this poll
North Carolina - won by Trump by 4% - Biden leads by 2%
Georgia - won by Trump by 5% - Biden leads by 2%
Texas - won by Trump by 9% - Biden leads by 1%
So Biden leads Hillary's performance by about 7 percentage points over Trump (a swing of 3.5%).
Biden doesn't need any of them.
There is a beach near me with direct access via a ladder down a vertical cliff face. There is a half mile walk from the road to the beach. Yesterday I counted 30 cars parked on the road, a rather narrow lane. And we are technically in lockdown.
Why can't British people behave themselves?
The app isn't delivering much in the way of actual benefits - ie it isn't functioning in the broad sense. The number of downloads suggest only about 2% of interactions in Germany will be logged, and there's no way of evaluating whether the logged interactions were actually dangerous.
Plus if he adds some of the 3% who voted Libertarian Party in 2016 Trump gets to 48% or 49% if he wins back all his 2016 vote even if Biden holds all the Hillary vote.
Headline - 67
7 days - 52 (quite a bit of back dating)
Yesterday - 9
Regions :
Midlands and NorthWest barely in double digits.
Others are single digits now
Bearing in mind that Clinton won nearly 3 million votes more than Trump and he won 3 States by tiny majorities that was not a huge failure. Certainly not garbage.
Trump was lucky last time.
'Do you feel lucky, Trump?'
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1273609119400935426?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1273609119400935426&ref_url=https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/survey-on-twitter-shows-majority-of-brits-still-want-to-stay-in-eu-1-6708725
Minnesota hasn't really being mentioned much but that is swinging Republican. Interesting to see what happens this time
https://twitter.com/suffragentleman/status/1276401100795584512?s=21
Which isn't to say Biden looks so great. But Trump's problem is that he's getting no boosts from anything he himself does or says right now. He needs some - and fast. Otherwise it's hurtle down the plughole time. He tried to put blood on the streets outside his palace, and failed. He tried to launch his campaign, and failed. He tried to sue his niece [*], and his first application failed. He needs something. Any ideas for what?
(*) I haven't looked closely at his brother Robert whose name the application was in, but it seems to me to have Donald's fingerprints all over it. It's similar to the ludicrous report written by a medic stating he would be the healthiest president ever. This time, the application went to a court in Queens because that's where his father's probate case had been dealt with, even though it's about an NDA and zero to do with estate distribution. Moreover the requested order was for a ban on Mary saying anything about her relationship with her family, which would be far broader than what, according to the application itself, she agreed in the NDA not to blab about. So ... ignore the first amendment, and for what reason exactly? In short the application is full of shit. And I wouldn't blame Robert and Donald's sister Maryanne either, a former judge in a federal appeals court. Nope. Smells like Donald all right. Watch this space. His back is to the wall and he's flailing.
The idea that because the polls got it wrong in 2016 they will again sounds exactly like the Corbynista rallying cry in the run up to last December.
Looking at the Special elections, the turnouts were low and again it sounds like those that tell us all the polls are wrong because the LDs have just had a 20% swing in a by-election somewhere or other.
Trump lost the vote in 2016 but was very fortunate in the way the votes panned out in each state. He would be fortunate to repeat that trick.
The question I ask myself is who is going to vote for Trump this year who didn't in 2016?
It's pretty clear that Biden is clearly ahead right now but most of us accept that things could change over the next four months.
I've seen better looking cardboard cut outs. Why did he agree to those debates?