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

System · October 2018

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

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

Read the full story here

Freggles · October 2018

For those with time on their hands in the runup to the midterms, FiveThirtyEight are putting out podcast episodes very frequently - I think daily, for the last two weeks.

Chris_A · October 2018

And the media tend to forget that a 5 in 6 chance of the Democrats gaining a majority in the House does not mean that they will.

Alistair · October 2018

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

edmundintokyo · October 2018

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

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

Peter_the_Punter · October 2018

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

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

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

Nemtynakht · October 2018

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

So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?

edmundintokyo · October 2018

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

Alistair · October 2018

Nemtynakht said:

Alistair said:
I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.
So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?

Not a clue. That's why I have exited the market.

DecrepitJohnL · October 2018

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

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

When this happens at the start of a thread, you can often find the "disappeared" post via the Vanilla interface. I normally copy and paste it back to the pb interface and don't worry about the potential duplication.

AlastairMeeks · October 2018

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

Others will know better than me though.

Nemtynakht · October 2018

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

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

Alistair · October 2018

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

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

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

The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.

DecrepitJohnL · October 2018

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

It is not just GOP shyness but a question of whether anti-Trump GOP voters (the ones who are not just pretending to care about biblical virtues, or fiscal responsibility, and so on) regard Trump as sui generis, freeing themselves to vote for proper Republicans at lower levels.

Alistair · October 2018

For reference here is the 2014 and 2010 generic ballot from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

Richard_Nabavi · October 2018

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

Others will know better than me though.

My experience of trying to read the entrails of early-voting figures in previous US elections is that it's incredibly difficult to interpret them. It seems as though the figures ought to be telling you something, but I haven't found any real predictive power in them. It might be that someone who really knows the state in question and the situation on the ground would be able to draw useful indications from the figures, but even that isn't very helpful because it's hard to get commentary which is both non-partisan and well-informed.

SouthamObserver · October 2018

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

Peter_the_Punter · October 2018

Alistair said:

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

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

538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.

He may be an adulterer, but at least he's our kind of adulterer! :-)

Stereotomy · October 2018

Alistair said:

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

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

538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.

That's partially explained by them prioritising abortion as an issue. And to be fair, if I thought abortion was baby murder, I'd think it was more important than Trump's history too

rcs1000 · October 2018

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

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

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

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

rpjs · October 2018

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

High turnout for the mid-terms should favour the Dems as they historically have lower mid-term turnout overall than the GOP.

Nemtynakht · October 2018

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

Others will know better than me though.

That does sound good for the democrats.

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

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

rcs1000 · October 2018

Nemtynakht said:

Alistair said:
I am still standing by my statement that this is a high turnout election and that will screw the American pollsters notoriously tight turnout filters.
So will they get it wrong in favour of Dems or Reps?

Yes

rcs1000 · October 2018

Nemtynakht said:

edmundintokyo said:
On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.
I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?

Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")

rcs1000 · October 2018

Alistair said:

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

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

538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.

I would be intrigued to find out whether Democrats views moved in the opposite direction.

AllyPally_Rob · October 2018

Alistair said:

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

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

538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.

Evangelical voters have always put power above principles, so their support of Trump is consistent with that.

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

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

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

Stereotomy · October 2018

rcs1000 said:

Nemtynakht said:

edmundintokyo said:
On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.
I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")

Surely your sample of Republicans will only contain the non-shy ones?

rcs1000 · October 2018

Alistair said:
For reference here is the 2014 and 2010 generic ballot from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html

So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.

DavidL · October 2018

An interesting article from 538 about how much polling there is in each race. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-some-competitive-races-have-little-to-no-polling-thats-a-problem/

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

Alistair · October 2018

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:
For reference here is the 2014 and 2010 generic ballot from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html
So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.

For me the big thing was the 'late' Republican surge in both.

Alistair · October 2018

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

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

If white women break in favour of the Dems then it will be an ultra landslide.

HarryHayfield · October 2018

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

Sean_F · October 2018

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

That seems to be on the high side. The general view is that a lead of 6-7% would do it.

Nemtynakht · October 2018

rcs1000 said:

Nemtynakht said:

edmundintokyo said:
On the Brexit angle, I think the MAGA Bomber could do something similar to what I think happened after the Jo Cox assassination, namely the Dems suddenly open up a lead in the next week, but it's really down GOP voter shyness and the voters end up voting the way they were saying they would before it happened.
I think the risk is that people actually and inexplicably want to vote for Trump. Do you remember the shy Tory effect. Who in their right mind would want to tell a pollster they were going to vote for Trump?
Living in Los Angeles, I can assure you that - even in the heart of liberal America - people are not shy about their Republican affiliation. (Usually they say something like "Donald Trump's an idiot, but the Republicans are better than Democrats.")

Yes but surely the base is similar to UK. There are probably 25% who would vote Labour or Tory in any case so half of all voters. It doesn’t matter how strong they are, it’s the other 50%who matter

rkrkrk · October 2018

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

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

williamglenn · October 2018

https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296

rcs1000 · October 2018

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

There are 30 odd house seats where the Republicans have leads of less than 8% so I'm not sure where your 13% comes from.

Sean_F · October 2018

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

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

The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.

Scott_P · October 2018

https://twitter.com/abradacabla/status/1055420467857764352

OblitusSumMe · October 2018

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

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

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

Expect the Democrats to "mysteriously" underperform their poll scores and be wary of ascribing this to lazy voters.

Scott_P · October 2018

https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1055422695603613697

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1055411831823626240

AlastairMeeks · October 2018

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

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

Nigelb · October 2018

rkrkrk said:

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

There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

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

Scott_P · October 2018

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1055425738076311553

Nigelb · October 2018

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

Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html

HYUFD · October 2018

rely this is more equivalent to GE17 for Remainers when they could clip May's and hard Brexiteers wings as Denocrats can do with Trump.in the midterms? Remainers winning a second referendum and reversing Brexit would be the equivalent of Democrats beating Trump in 2020.

HYUFD · October 2018

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

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

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/08/19/cbs-news-yougov-house-model-democrats-222-republic

rkrkrk · October 2018

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

HarryHayfield said:
According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.
How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

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

Good points. I still think (and hope) 13% is too high.

DecrepitJohnL · October 2018

Peter_the_Punter said:

Alistair said:

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

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

538 did of course have the US in mind, but I think it might be equally valid here.
The change in Evangelicals acceptance of adultery that occurred when Trump became the nominee was staggering.
He may be an adulterer, but at least he's our kind of adulterer! :-)

iirc someone here commented on JRM, who wears his religion on his sleeve for some issues, being so quick to defend Boris despite repeated breaches of commandment number six.

Tissue_Price · October 2018

Some more Beto ramping...
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-at-last-a-us-democrat-who-has-learned-the-lessons-of-trump-a3970236.html

DavidL · October 2018

Y

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.
The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.

Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.

OblitusSumMe · October 2018

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:
TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....
Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html

US politics would really benefit from multi-member STV elections. Discuss?

HYUFD · October 2018

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

Though Citizens up 6% on the last general election and just behind the PP and the PSOE still below the P.O. total at the last general election

Pulpstar · October 2018

DavidL said:
Y
Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.
The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.

He's not lieing Ted right now. He's "Beautiful Ted" !

Pulpstar · October 2018

Beautiful Ted

DavidL · October 2018

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:
Y
Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.
The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.
He's not lieing Ted right now. He's "Beautiful Ted" !

I thought it was Texas Ted. But Trump does seem to have motivated his base to help his former rival.

Sean_F · October 2018

DavidL said:
Y
Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:
Calling the midterms this year is incredibly tough. In my memory, I can't remember greater interest.

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

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

I also suspect that we're going to see the "swing" group is going to be white women. They voted for Trump by nine percentage points in 2016 - my guess is that they'll break narrowly for the Democrats this time around.
The Democrats always seem to build up their hopes in Texas, only to be disappointed.
Yep, Lying Ted is looking pretty safe now.

The issue seems to be with Hispanic voters. A higher proportion of them vote Republican in Texas than in the USA as a whole, and they have low turnout overall. My guess would be that people whose forebears moved to Texas hundreds of years ago from Spain are as likely to vote Republican as white Anglo voters.

HYUFD · October 2018

Facebook fined £500000 by ICO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45976300#share-tools

Pulpstar · October 2018

HYUFD said:
Facebook fined £500000 by ICO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45976300#share-tools

How will they pay !

rottenborough · October 2018

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:
Facebook fined £500000 by ICO

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45976300#share-tools
How will they pay !

Bitcoins?

Tissue_Price · October 2018

Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889

Pulpstar · October 2018

Stories from 'The Daily Brexit'
Routing the rebels, now taking on the EU ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036083/brexit-news-theresa-may-jacob-rees-mogg-1922-committee-brexit-deal-chequers
Warning ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036222/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Dominic-Raab-European-Union-Commons-Michel-Barnier
Sabotage ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036182/Brexit-news-latest-update-post-brexit-trade-WTO-russia-tariffs-theresa-may

Stereotomy · October 2018

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/25/sajid-javid-apologises-to-migrants-forced-to-give-dna-samples

rottenborough · October 2018

EU fact of the day:

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

Oh dear...

rottenborough · October 2018

Pulpstar said:
Stories from 'The Daily Brexit'
Routing the rebels, now taking on the EU ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036083/brexit-news-theresa-may-jacob-rees-mogg-1922-committee-brexit-deal-chequers
Warning ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036222/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Dominic-Raab-European-Union-Commons-Michel-Barnier
Sabotage ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036182/Brexit-news-latest-update-post-brexit-trade-WTO-russia-tariffs-theresa-may

Yeh, but when's the next killer snowstorm to hit us?

GarethoftheVale2 · October 2018

rcs1000 said:

Alistair said:
For reference here is the 2014 and 2010 generic ballot from RCP

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2010_generic_congressional_vote-2171.html
So... one understated the Republicans and the other overstated them. Not much help there. And, of course, pollsters change their models all the time. And we have no frickin' idea who is going to turn up and vote this time around.

Absolutely agree. Turnout will be key in these elections.

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

The other thing to bear in mind is that the number of undecided voters varies strongly by state. For example, Ipsos make Texas 49%R-44%D vs Nevada 47%R-41%D on likely voters, suggesting there is more opportunity for the Dems to turn around Nevada

stodge · October 2018

Tissue_Price said:
Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889

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

RobD · October 2018

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:
Stories from 'The Daily Brexit'
Routing the rebels, now taking on the EU ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036083/brexit-news-theresa-may-jacob-rees-mogg-1922-committee-brexit-deal-chequers
Warning ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036222/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Dominic-Raab-European-Union-Commons-Michel-Barnier
Sabotage ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036182/Brexit-news-latest-update-post-brexit-trade-WTO-russia-tariffs-theresa-may
Yeh, but when's the next killer snowstorm to hit us?

Storm Diana?

TheWhiteRabbit · October 2018

Tissue_Price said:
Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889

I was very confused but I got there in the end...

DavidL · October 2018

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:
Stories from 'The Daily Brexit'
Routing the rebels, now taking on the EU ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036083/brexit-news-theresa-may-jacob-rees-mogg-1922-committee-brexit-deal-chequers
Warning ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036222/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Dominic-Raab-European-Union-Commons-Michel-Barnier
Sabotage ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036182/Brexit-news-latest-update-post-brexit-trade-WTO-russia-tariffs-theresa-may
Yeh, but when's the next killer snowstorm to hit us?

And what would Diana have thought about all this?

Nigelb · October 2018

rkrkrk said:

Nigelb said:

rkrkrk said:

HarryHayfield said:
According to my calculations, the Democrats need a 13% lead in the House election to take the House (a 7% swing on the 2016 result). In the 2014 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 3% (compared a GOP lead of 7%), in the 2010 polls the final average was a GOP lead of 9% (compared to a GOP lead of 7%), in 2006 the final average was a Dem lead of 11% (actual Dem lead of 8%) and in 2002 a GOP lead of 2% became a GOP lead of 5%, suggesting that, on average, the polls are wrong by 3%, meaning that unless the Dems have a 16% lead on the eve of the election, the House will NOT flip.
How have you worked out the Democrats need a 13% lead in House election to win a majority?
In 2006 they won by 8 points and had a comfortable majority.
There's no agreement on the precise numbers (and 13% seems at the top end), but it's widely recognised that Republican redistricting since 2006 has raised the hurdle significantly:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/17144198/gerrymandering-brennan-center-report-midterms-democrats-house-2018

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

I'm pretty sure you're right on that.

Beverley_C · October 2018

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

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

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

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

Incredible...

RobD · October 2018

stodge said:

Tissue_Price said:
Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889
They've put up the East Ham result instead of the Newport West result. Don't remember seeing a Plaid candidate on the ballot but no surprise they beat the LDs !!

Missing a zero in the Tory figure. Fake news!

OblitusSumMe · October 2018

Tissue_Price said:
Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889

They've missed literally 0 votes from the Tory total, but it has made a difference of 33%.

david_herdson · October 2018

OblitusSumMe said:

Tissue_Price said:
Spot the typo...
https://twitter.com/skyelections/status/872984905818533889
They've missed literally 0 votes from the Tory total, but it has made a difference of 33%.

If the swing in Newport W is the same as in Copeland (and there are lots of reasons it shouldn't be), then the result would be almost a dead-heat. For the Tories to be 3/1 to win suggests to me that unless there are local factors I'm not aware of, Labour should be shorter than they are.

Stark_Dawning · October 2018

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Pulpstar said:
Stories from 'The Daily Brexit'
Routing the rebels, now taking on the EU ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036083/brexit-news-theresa-may-jacob-rees-mogg-1922-committee-brexit-deal-chequers
Warning ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036222/Brexit-news-UK-EU-Dominic-Raab-European-Union-Commons-Michel-Barnier
Sabotage ! https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1036182/Brexit-news-latest-update-post-brexit-trade-WTO-russia-tariffs-theresa-may
Yeh, but when's the next killer snowstorm to hit us?
And what would Diana have thought about all this?

First the Mail now the Express - It's extraordinary how unhip the ERG crowd have become and how in the ascendancy Theresa is. Everyone now loves her and hates them. The Brexit ultras made out that the 52% were all as swivel eyed as they were. I think the public are now punishing them for their presumptions.

Nigelb · October 2018

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

Incredible...

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

TGOHF · October 2018

rottenborough said:
EU fact of the day:

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

Oh dear...

Titter.

Nigelb · October 2018

False flag is not exactly a new meme for the party of Trump:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/261899230673784832

timmo · October 2018

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296

Name one that has gone to jail?

Stark_Dawning · October 2018

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?

An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.

Sean_F · October 2018

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

Incredible...

I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.

Sean_F · October 2018

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?

Usually, they get knighted.

glw · October 2018

Nigelb said:

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

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

It's not completely ridiculous, the recent ricin containing letters were initially believed to be a politically motivated attack. The man who has been charged with sending them is a US Navy veteran from Utah who given the targets chosen may have some personal beef with the US Navy.

edmundintokyo · October 2018

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:
TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....
Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html

Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.

Richard_Nabavi · October 2018

Sean_F said:

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

Incredible...
I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.

Not only that, but the return address on the packages shows they were sent by Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Sean_F · October 2018

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:
TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....
Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.

The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2018

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?

Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

I can name more if you’d like.

Sean_F · October 2018

TheScreamingEagles said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

I can name more if you’d like.

The only man in history to recover from Alzheimer's.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2018

Sean_F said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

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

Prison changes a man.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2018

Stark_Dawning said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.

That was nominative determinism in action.

Didn’t Robert Loosemore go to prison as well?

Stark_Dawning · October 2018

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stark_Dawning said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
An old boss of mine: Mark Woodbridge.
That was nominative determinism in action.

Didn’t Robert Loosemore go to prison as well?

Yes. Several of them did a stint.

TOPPING · October 2018

TheScreamingEagles said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

I can name more if you’d like.

I'm surprised you're here and sober given the day.

GreenHeron · October 2018

Turnout will make at least as much difference as how the unaffiliated break in midterms. The trend is usually for the opposition party but on this occasions the Rs seem equally motivated, and I agree with Harry Hayfield that due to the concentration of Dem votes in the big cities the Dems may need a bigger lead in order to flip many of the battleground seats.

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

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

Beverley_C · October 2018

Nigelb said:

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

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

Politics is being unhinged....

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

GreenHeron · October 2018

Sean_F said:

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

Incredible...
I think it stands to reason that Democrats would be sending bombs to themselves.

As well as being critics of Trump, all the recipients were involved in fixing the Democrat primaries against Sanders.

OllyT · October 2018

Sean_F said:

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:
TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....
Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.

In a truly democratic system it shouldn't't really matter where your voters live. The US system is stacked in favour of rural conservatives with a Senate voter in Wyoming having the voting strength of 50 cCalifornians. That's before you begin to factor in gerrymandering and voter suppression. If the situation were reversed it would have been rectified years ago.

GarethoftheVale2 · October 2018

Sean_F said:

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

edmundintokyo said:
TBF on the gerrymandering, a lot the Democratic disadvantage is just FPTP doing its normal thing of arbitrarily screwing parties whose voters live close to each other....
Which doesn't really explain how district like these came into being...
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court-gerrymandered/index.html
Sure, I'm not saying there's no gerrymandering, I'm saying that even if there was no gerrymandering the Dems would still be at a serious disadvantage.
The Democratic vote is too heavily concentrated in very large cities.

If you look at Minnesota for example, which has fairly sensible boundaries, they have the following Cook PVI ratings:

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

The D+26 is Minneapolis and the D+14 is St Paul.

TheScreamingEagles · October 2018

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

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

Well.

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

This will be awkward.

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

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

TheScreamingEagles · October 2018

GreenHeron said:

Sean_F said:

Beverley_C said:

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

Given all the talk of traitors and quislings, more of this can be expected in Britain as well.
I have just heard a Trump supporter on R4 saying that the police should be investing the Democrats to see if they are sending themselves pipe-bombs to whip up sympathy for themselves and to make Trump look bad.

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

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

Even Robert De Niro?

Nigelb · October 2018

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

timmo said:

williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/rosaltmann/status/1055420568646967296
Name one that has gone to jail?
Ernest Saunders, that’s one.

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

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

This will be awkward.

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

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

Merde.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

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

Comments