Test Cases in Pandemic Response - Tale of Two Samoas
In 1918 when word was gripped by Spanish Influenza
>> in America (eastern) Samoa, the head official (US Navy officer) took strong measures. All incoming ships and their passenger were subject to strict quarantine. Cooperation was secured with local leaders, to the extent that chiefs turned away their own kinfolk trying to come in from other islands. Result = zero deaths from Spanish Flu
>> in New Zealand (western) Samoa, government officials did NOT quarantine incoming vessels. There was little respect or cooperation between the NZ rulers and Samoan locals; at one point when a school principal asked the governor for food for his students, he was advised the could have a dead horse outside his gate. As the pandemic took hold and raged among the native and garrison he refused offers of aid from American Samoa. Result = 22% of population dead
Here was what the Samoans had to say about this afterwards:
There are two islands in the South Pacific, Tutuila and Upolu, Tutuila under the American flag, Upolu that of New Zealand. God has sent down a sickness on the world, And all the lands are filled with suffering. The two islands are forty miles apart, But in Upolu, the Island of New Zealand, many are dead, While in Tutuila, the American island, not a one is dead. Why? In Tutuila they love the men of their villages; In Upolu they are doomed to punishment and to death. God in heaven bless the American governor and flag.
IF only more leaders today had the sense & sensibility of that Navy commander a century ago. For example, not may blessing the American president today.
Why? He is very popular and trying to make some sense out of the situation.
Peter Soulsby is the sort of salt of the earth Labour that gives the party a good name.
To be fair Dr Fox, the statement you have taken the trouble to reply to, really didn't deserve the effort.
I am back to work, so have far less time for PB, clearly the extreme Tory tampers are not as they are again out in tiresome force.
Good fortune to you and your city!
There are very few people with extreme views on PB, on either side.
Agreed, but there are several tiresome sycophantic fan boys - on both sides.
I know Anabobazina. There is one annoying poster on here who outed people as Trumptons not based on anything they particularly have said, just because they don't conform to their views. I'm just trying to find their handle....
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
"Some Leicester factories stayed open and forced staff to come in, report warns Allegations come as city begins second lockdown after infection rates increase"
It’s now seemingly possible to map many of the European outbreaks to cheap meat processing and/or sweatshop labour. By contrast, the virus has all but vanished from many areas.
The effects of the virus have been remarkably patchy right from the off - there have been plenty of localities that have hardly been touched. There have been no significant outbreaks in our town. I personally know nobody - not friends, family or work colleagues - who has shown any symptoms of the disease. A cousin of a friend who lives in Cardiff was very ill with it but that's as close as it has got - long may that continue.
My Mother, who retired to North Norfolk some years ago, relates how she only knows one person who claims to have had it (said individual being a notorious hypochondriac, whose case wasn't confirmed by test,) and that there have been no other cases of which she's aware in her village. The district as a whole has one of the highest age profiles of any in the whole country and is therefore chock full of vulnerable people but has got off very lightly.
Large tracts of England - East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the West Country all spring to mind - will be full of towns and villages that have dodged the bullets entirely or suffered only the odd isolated fatality; largely rural Cumbria, for reasons which surpasseth all understanding, hasn't been nearly so fortunate.
And then at the other end of the scale you have these horror stories from some of the London boroughs, where there are streets in which every third or fourth house has suffered a bereavement. Different communities are having very disparate experiences in this pandemic.
Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump).
Their model produces a number on their website that they update every day, you don't need to read the blog posts and try to guess the general vibe.
"Some Leicester factories stayed open and forced staff to come in, report warns Allegations come as city begins second lockdown after infection rates increase"
It’s now seemingly possible to map many of the European outbreaks to cheap meat processing and/or sweatshop labour. By contrast, the virus has all but vanished from many areas.
The effects of the virus have been remarkably patchy right from the off - there have been plenty of localities that have hardly been touched. There have been no significant outbreaks in our town. I personally know nobody - not friends, family or work colleagues - who has shown any symptoms of the disease. A cousin of a friend who lives in Cardiff was very ill with it but that's as close as it has got - long may that continue.
My Mother, who retired to North Norfolk some years ago, relates how she only knows one person who claims to have had it (said individual being a notorious hypochondriac, whose case wasn't confirmed by test,) and that there have been no other cases of which she's aware in her village. The district as a whole has one of the highest age profiles of any in the whole country and is therefore chock full of vulnerable people but has got off very lightly.
Large tracts of England - East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the West Country all spring to mind - will be full of towns and villages that have dodged the bullets entirely or suffered only the odd isolated fatality; largely rural Cumbria, for reasons which surpasseth all understanding, hasn't been nearly so fortunate.
And then at the other end of the scale you have these horror stories from some of the London boroughs, where there are streets in which every third or fourth house has suffered a bereavement. Different communities are having very disparate experiences in this pandemic.
Got off lightly, so far, is the more plausible explanation. That could remain the case if it’s kept under control - but it also suggests a large population out there as material for a second wave. There’s a very difficult line to tread until a vaccine or better treatments are available - and we can’t keep everything shut down for another 6-12 months.
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty. Safe for the vast majority of kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump).
Their model produces a number on their website that they update every day, you don't need to read the blog posts and try to guess the general vibe.
What was it saying a month out (I don't recall TBH)?
The gender split explains the lead - among men it's tied at 47 but among women Biden leads 59-35, a colossal 24-point advantage.
The geographical split shows Biden winning the North East 58-37 and the West 59-37. Trump wins the South 52-41 but incredibly (and completely contrary to the PBS-Marist poll at the weekend), Biden is winning the Midwest 61-32.
Yes, I know...
The White vote is split 49-48 in Trump's favour which would be a 12% swing on 2016.
I can't quite believe some of these big Biden leads - the Midwest sample looks a massive outlier which would throw out the White vote poll sample as well.
Is this poll (or the Marist one) *supposed* to be demographically balanced by region?
Generally with any poll you can look at the various subsamples and find something in it that will allow you to say "this poll shows X getting 85% of left-handed people, that can't be right". But that doesn't mean the poll is wrong, it means you shouldn't try to draw broad conclusions about geographical splits or anything else from the subsamples of a single poll.
Whites are STILL splitting for Trump. Incredible.
I had this thought the other day. The American left is kinda lucky that Trump is such a flailing and incompetent idiot. So utterly inept that he is going to lose an election when a reasonably clever, non-insane Republican populist could soak up the white vote and win at a canter
If the Woke Wars continue, this race divide, in America, will not get better. A more persuasive and articulate demagogue than Trump may yet emerge
Re: race, their has been a true sea change over here post-George Floyd. Which is a BIG surprise to yours truly and many, many others. Reminiscent of the sea change that took place re: gay marriage and (to lesser but still crucial degree) marijuana legalization. Except with race it is a MUCH bigger deal, because racial injustice is America's Original Sin.
Yes, I see that. You can sense it. This is sincere (and it may be good for America: I truly hope so).
I did a trip to the Deep South a few months ago, toured New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and read a dozen books on slavery as I drove around. It really opened my eyes to how much slavery affects America even to this day. I went to the Natchez Trace where 2 million slaves were walked south from Nashville. Barely known now
I stayed in a Plantation house, 20 miles from New Orleans, where I had one of the few possibly and truly supernatural experiences of my life. It's a long story but as soon as I was shown my room in an otherwise deserted building (the whole thing was like Psycho) I got the heebie jeebies. It was surely haunted. It was awful, a sense of throbbing evil
I was up half the night freakin' out (the room full of vintage dolls didn't help) and when I finally slept I had weird vivid horrifying dreams of ghoulish children all over the house, and playing with a strange determination, in the garden
In the morning the staff returned and I said "Er, is this place meant to be haunted"? And the chef (lovely woman) said "Oh yeah, we get people sayin they can hear children playing on the stairs and in the garden". Then I told her my dreams and she went very pale
I researched the building later that day and it was the scene of a tremendous atrocity against rebel slaves in about 1810 and notorious in general for cruelty to slaves, including kids
I'll try and look up a reference
So, yes, I get the whole Original Sin thing
Wow, reading your story give me goosebumps! As a graduate of Louisiana State University ("Good ole boys from LSU / Go in dumb come out dumb too") am very familiar with places you visited. Is the plantation The Myrtles in St Francisville? Only a few miles from Angola Penitentiary, made famous by "Dead Man Walking".
The Natchez Trace is an amazing historical/scenic highway. When I lived in Baton Rouge and traveled regularly up to West Virginia & back, my preference was to take NT from Natchez to Nashville; speed limit was lower than interstate, but it was shorter drive, less traffic, MUCH more pleasant driving - and at night you could make up for lost time because no traffic at all, no cops, and good road without many curves & such. HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT, It was indeed slave-drivers trail, but also used by others including Andy Jackson's army of Tennesseans who used it to reach New Orleans in time to greet their British cousins. (For more details, dust off your old Johnny Horton record.)
First time I was ever in Deep South was 1973 when my folks moved to Slidell, LA just across Lake Pontchartrain from NO. Was an eye-opener; culture shock + immediate aftermath of civil rights revolution. Ended up hanging out with folks ranging from Black cab drivers to White former (and semi-reformed) KKKers, who had a share love for many things characteristic of the Southland. (Sorta like Prots and Taigs in Belfast)
Thing that struck me was, Black Americans, leastways in the South, are among the most forgiving people in the world. Heck, by the late 70s in Alabama, they were voting for George Wallace. Partly cause he was better than the Republican alternatives, but largely because he asked for their forgiveness and turned a new leaf. Something Black folks could truly understand and deeply appreciate. Faith, hope and charity.
Did the Natchez Trail in 1995. Arrived at Oxford, looking for a motel or hotel. None to be had - homecoming for Old Miss. So drove on to Nashville - nothing there - 20th anniversary of Elvis' death. Had to drive on to Jackson (with Johnny Cash and June Carter rattling around in my head) to find anywhere to stay.
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty. Safe for the kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
To be re-tweeted by 100,000 teachers by mid-morning...
US President Donald Trump's administration has secured almost all the world's upcoming supply of the drug remdesivir. The drug, produced by the firm Gilead Sciences, is the first approved by authorities in the US to be used to treat Covid-19.
It has been shown to help people recover faster from the disease.
A statement from the Department of Health and Human services says Trump struck an "amazing" deal with Gilead for 500,000 doses which amounts to 100% of Gilead's production in July, 90% of it in August and 90% in September.
A treatment course of remdesivir is, on average, 6.25 vials.
The gender split explains the lead - among men it's tied at 47 but among women Biden leads 59-35, a colossal 24-point advantage.
The geographical split shows Biden winning the North East 58-37 and the West 59-37. Trump wins the South 52-41 but incredibly (and completely contrary to the PBS-Marist poll at the weekend), Biden is winning the Midwest 61-32.
Yes, I know...
The White vote is split 49-48 in Trump's favour which would be a 12% swing on 2016.
I can't quite believe some of these big Biden leads - the Midwest sample looks a massive outlier which would throw out the White vote poll sample as well.
Is this poll (or the Marist one) *supposed* to be demographically balanced by region?
Generally with any poll you can look at the various subsamples and find something in it that will allow you to say "this poll shows X getting 85% of left-handed people, that can't be right". But that doesn't mean the poll is wrong, it means you shouldn't try to draw broad conclusions about geographical splits or anything else from the subsamples of a single poll.
Whites are STILL splitting for Trump. Incredible.
I had this thought the other day. The American left is kinda lucky that Trump is such a flailing and incompetent idiot. So utterly inept that he is going to lose an election when a reasonably clever, non-insane Republican populist could soak up the white vote and win at a canter
If the Woke Wars continue, this race divide, in America, will not get better. A more persuasive and articulate demagogue than Trump may yet emerge
Re: race, their has been a true sea change over here post-George Floyd. Which is a BIG surprise to yours truly and many, many others. Reminiscent of the sea change that took place re: gay marriage and (to lesser but still crucial degree) marijuana legalization. Except with race it is a MUCH bigger deal, because racial injustice is America's Original Sin.
Yes, I see that. You can sense it. This is sincere (and it may be good for America: I truly hope so).
I did a trip to the Deep South a few months ago, toured New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and read a dozen books on slavery as I drove around. It really opened my eyes to how much slavery affects America even to this day. I went to the Natchez Trace where 2 million slaves were walked south from Nashville. Barely known now
I stayed in a Plantation house, 20 miles from New Orleans, where I had one of the few possibly and truly supernatural experiences of my life. It's a long story but as soon as I was shown my room in an otherwise deserted building (the whole thing was like Psycho) I got the heebie jeebies. It was surely haunted. It was awful, a sense of throbbing evil
I was up half the night freakin' out (the room full of vintage dolls didn't help) and when I finally slept I had weird vivid horrifying dreams of ghoulish children all over the house, and playing with a strange determination, in the garden
In the morning the staff returned and I said "Er, is this place meant to be haunted"? And the chef (lovely woman) said "Oh yeah, we get people sayin they can hear children playing on the stairs and in the garden". Then I told her my dreams and she went very pale
I researched the building later that day and it was the scene of a tremendous atrocity against rebel slaves in about 1810 and notorious in general for cruelty to slaves, including kids
I'll try and look up a reference
So, yes, I get the whole Original Sin thing
Wow, reading your story give me goosebumps! As a graduate of Louisiana State University ("Good ole boys from LSU / Go in dumb come out dumb too") am very familiar with places you visited. Is the plantation The Myrtles in St Francisville? Only a few miles from Angola Penitentiary, made famous by "Dead Man Walking".
The Natchez Trace is an amazing historical/scenic highway. When I lived in Baton Rouge and traveled regularly up to West Virginia & back, my preference was to take NT from Natchez to Nashville; speed limit was lower than interstate, but it was shorter drive, less traffic, MUCH more pleasant driving - and at night you could make up for lost time because no traffic at all, no cops, and good road without many curves & such. HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT, It was indeed slave-drivers trail, but also used by others including Andy Jackson's army of Tennesseans who used it to reach New Orleans in time to greet their British cousins. (For more details, dust off your old Johnny Horton record.)
First time I was ever in Deep South was 1973 when my folks moved to Slidell, LA just across Lake Pontchartrain from NO. Was an eye-opener; culture shock + immediate aftermath of civil rights revolution. Ended up hanging out with folks ranging from Black cab drivers to White former (and semi-reformed) KKKers, who had a share love for many things characteristic of the Southland. (Sorta like Prots and Taigs in Belfast)
Thing that struck me was, Black Americans, leastways in the South, are among the most forgiving people in the world. Heck, by the late 70s in Alabama, they were voting for George Wallace. Partly cause he was better than the Republican alternatives, but largely because he asked for their forgiveness and turned a new leaf. Something Black folks could truly understand and deeply appreciate. Faith, hope and charity.
Did the Natchez Trail in 1995. Arrived at Oxford, looking for a motel or hotel. None to be had - homecoming for Old Miss. So drove on to Nashville - nothing there - 20th anniversary of Elvis' death. Had to drive on to Jackson (with Johnny Cash and June Carter rattling around in my head) to find anywhere to stay.
@ SeaShanty. First time I heard of Lake Pontchartrain was when I bought my house in Cape Charles on Virginia's Eastern Shore on that same long trip in 1995. A Mr Thibideau introduced himself to me at the local breakfast diner. He had come to Cape Charles from NO in the early 60s to build the bridge/tunnel from the Eastern Shore to Norfolk VA. His previous project was the bridge on Lake Pontchartrain.
When he drove his car into Cape Charles in 1962, as he stepped out of his car, a gentleman walked up to him and said "Welcome to Cape Charles, Mr Thibideau." He asked the local how he knew his name. "you're the only person in town not from here, and we're expecting someone called Mr Thibideau."
Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump).
Their model produces a number on their website that they update every day, you don't need to read the blog posts and try to guess the general vibe.
What was it saying a month out (I don't recall TBH)?
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty. Safe for the kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
To be re-tweeted by 100,000 teachers by mid-morning...
You’d prefer I hadn’t posted it ?
The analysis is from the US CDC. They haven’t published the full paper yet, and I will look out for it.
I’d very much prefer that it’s not the case, but I said last week that the “schools are safe” declaration was an assertion rather than a fact. It might still be true, but we just don’t know. If we’re definitely reopening them in September, we need to be aware of it.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
Your points on turnout are good. But here's the thing: that's one datapoint. Pretty much every other datapoint looks terrible for President Trump.
- Economics - Coronavirus - Number of Registered Republicans - Opinion polls
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that there is about a quarter of the electorate who is seriously pumped about Mr Trump. Come rain or shine, pandemic or no pandemic, they believe (rightly) that he cares for them, and has their interests at heart.
And that quarter turns out in Primaries (although they didn't turn out in sufficient numbers at the midterms in 2018).
But is it enough this year?
It might be. There's no doubt that Biden is a monumentally awful candidate compared to (say) Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker. He's probably suffering from the early stages of dementia, and in a normal election would be hammered.
If there was no CV-19, I think that Trump would be clear favourite. Incumbents are usually (although not always) re-elected. Back in the latter half of last year I not only forecast his victory, but welcomed it.
But there is CV-19. The US economy is not re-opening, it's re-closing. The CV-19 hotspots are in Republican swing states, not Democrat ones. They're in Arizona, Florida and Georgia (and perhaps Texas). If even one of those flips, then (given the paucity of options for Trump pickups) it's going to be hard for Trump to hold the Presidency.
So, I'm going for a 35-40% chance of a Trump re-election. And even that requires CV-19 to be brought under control. If CV-19 - and/or its economic impacts - continue to be felt in November, then no amount of woke-idiocy is going to kill the Democrats.
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty. Safe for the kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
To be re-tweeted by 100,000 teachers by mid-morning...
You’d prefer I hadn’t posted it ?
The analysis is from the US CDC. They haven’t published the full paper yet, and I will look out for it.
I’d very much prefer that it’s not the case, but I said last week that the “schools are safe” declaration was an assertion rather than a fact. It might still be true, but we just don’t know. If we’re definitely reopening them in September, we need to be aware of it.
Please do keep posting these studies. The one you did earlier on surveillance and need for low turnaround time vs high sensitivity was really interesting and useful for my work.
"Some Leicester factories stayed open and forced staff to come in, report warns Allegations come as city begins second lockdown after infection rates increase"
It’s now seemingly possible to map many of the European outbreaks to cheap meat processing and/or sweatshop labour. By contrast, the virus has all but vanished from many areas.
The effects of the virus have been remarkably patchy right from the off - there have been plenty of localities that have hardly been touched. There have been no significant outbreaks in our town. I personally know nobody - not friends, family or work colleagues - who has shown any symptoms of the disease. A cousin of a friend who lives in Cardiff was very ill with it but that's as close as it has got - long may that continue.
My Mother, who retired to North Norfolk some years ago, relates how she only knows one person who claims to have had it (said individual being a notorious hypochondriac, whose case wasn't confirmed by test,) and that there have been no other cases of which she's aware in her village. The district as a whole has one of the highest age profiles of any in the whole country and is therefore chock full of vulnerable people but has got off very lightly.
Large tracts of England - East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the West Country all spring to mind - will be full of towns and villages that have dodged the bullets entirely or suffered only the odd isolated fatality; largely rural Cumbria, for reasons which surpasseth all understanding, hasn't been nearly so fortunate.
And then at the other end of the scale you have these horror stories from some of the London boroughs, where there are streets in which every third or fourth house has suffered a bereavement. Different communities are having very disparate experiences in this pandemic.
Got off lightly, so far, is the more plausible explanation. That could remain the case if it’s kept under control - but it also suggests a large population out there as material for a second wave. There’s a very difficult line to tread until a vaccine or better treatments are available - and we can’t keep everything shut down for another 6-12 months.
Frankly, hard to see why things will be different in the South West in any second wave. Many people took very few risks first wave, will do the same in any second. Not great for the economy if hotels and B&Bs have to close again, admittedly, but don't see it ripping through the huge reservoir of the vulnerable.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
So you put Trump's chances quite a bit higher. I'd add that my 40% chance for Trump is assuming that Trump and Biden are the Republican and Democrat candidates - I have no idea what the chances are that either might drop out, or drop dead, or be forced out.
I'm not really surprised that GOP chairs sound confident - isn't that always the case?
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
Agreed. 538 had trump at 30% on the day of the election, and this probability had been increasing over the previous week or so. A reason why I like the 538 predictions is that, without giving away their exact models, they are open about the methods they are using, which seem sensible for data coming from different sources with different reliabilties etc. The approach also means that the probabilities are easy to obtain by simulation, which crucially take into account correlations in the data. Eg if Michichigan moving a tick towards Rep makes a tick towards Rep in Pa and Ohio more likely. Put this all together and I have much more trust in 538 models than individual polls, especially US polls.
I find it so annoying that so many people interpret predicting a 70% chance of winning as "definitely will win". Still some people on this forum certainly make money out of people who do not undertstand this.
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty. Safe for the kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
Important information. I would also like to see a similar study for asymptomatic corona positive children and adolesants. That is important, because it seems that many children have very mild symptoms.
So first Keir Starmer and now the Premier League distance themselves from BLM.. and I'm the one "losing credibilty" for pointing out right from the beginning that they were far left cranks that people should avoid being associated with
Yes. Get over it already, you look as obsessed as a Remainer banging on about the bus.
Wokes getting annoyed that they were duped yet again
I remember watching it in 1988. For some reason it seemed like most of the country was obsessed with the show at the time. When you watch clips now you wonder what all the fuss was about.
Do the people traversing the border come from the hotspots in England? Cases in London probably have no effect on those in Scotland.
It is a bit of a daft headline.
Even if you get rid of it locally, for all values of locally, there will always be somewhere to import it from, whether that is England, Yorkshire, or the next street. For quite some time to come.
Still shows what a decent government can do as opposed to a bunch of chancers and grifters
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
Adapting your opinions on the confidence of Rep or Dem politicians in interviews is a poor strategy. Americans in general are very good at turning in an enthusiastic and confident performance, even if they don't feel it inside. Politicians are especially good at this trick.
So first Keir Starmer and now the Premier League distance themselves from BLM.. and I'm the one "losing credibilty" for pointing out right from the beginning that they were far left cranks that people should avoid being associated with
Yes. Get over it already, you look as obsessed as a Remainer banging on about the bus.
Wokes getting annoyed that they were duped yet again
Whilst I get where the Premier League are trying to come from, the argument that BLM is being “hijacked” by elements with another agenda is somewhat ridiculous when those “elements” were behind the slogan in the first place. The “taking the knee” symbol had a somewhat different purpose originally to how it is being interpreted now.
Someone made a decent point the other day saying that the PL adopting “BLM” didn’t exactly show a lot of confidence in their existing and active anti racism campaigns (“Kick it out” etc).
I remember watching it in 1988. For some reason it seemed like most of the country was obsessed with the show at the time. When you watch clips now you wonder what all the fuss was about.
For a lot of peope it was a kind of a cult. I watched it a lot around that time. It was a soap opera which you did not have to take seriously. One which didn't care if pillars wobbled as someone walked past. In those days the show was also lucky enough to have 3 young adults whose career would have been sucessful even without that great springboard.
Once again Indian death toll figures aren't so much manipulated as not even counted.
I get that the is always the danger that this comes across as trying to “excuse” the U.K. response/performance but too often it seems to me there is a failure to apply “smell tests” when trying to interpret all these “comparative” figures. Often the only way it seems to me some of them can be legitimately explained away as genuine is where you conclude it is due to relative differences in elderly populations in some countries.
It is also noticeable that Worldometer/John Hopkins university is clearly very US focussed, and I doubt applies anything like the same amount of effort/resources in interpreting figures coming out of other countries.
The gender split explains the lead - among men it's tied at 47 but among women Biden leads 59-35, a colossal 24-point advantage.
The geographical split shows Biden winning the North East 58-37 and the West 59-37. Trump wins the South 52-41 but incredibly (and completely contrary to the PBS-Marist poll at the weekend), Biden is winning the Midwest 61-32.
Yes, I know...
The White vote is split 49-48 in Trump's favour which would be a 12% swing on 2016.
I can't quite believe some of these big Biden leads - the Midwest sample looks a massive outlier which would throw out the White vote poll sample as well.
Is this poll (or the Marist one) *supposed* to be demographically balanced by region?
Generally with any poll you can look at the various subsamples and find something in it that will allow you to say "this poll shows X getting 85% of left-handed people, that can't be right". But that doesn't mean the poll is wrong, it means you shouldn't try to draw broad conclusions about geographical splits or anything else from the subsamples of a single poll.
Whites are STILL splitting for Trump. Incredible.
I had this thought the other day. The American left is kinda lucky that Trump is such a flailing and incompetent idiot. So utterly inept that he is going to lose an election when a reasonably clever, non-insane Republican populist could soak up the white vote and win at a canter
If the Woke Wars continue, this race divide, in America, will not get better. A more persuasive and articulate demagogue than Trump may yet emerge
Re: race, their has been a true sea change over here post-George Floyd. Which is a BIG surprise to yours truly and many, many others. Reminiscent of the sea change that took place re: gay marriage and (to lesser but still crucial degree) marijuana legalization. Except with race it is a MUCH bigger deal, because racial injustice is America's Original Sin.
Yes, I see that. You can sense it. This is sincere (and it may be good for America: I truly hope so).
I did a trip to the Deep South a few months ago, toured New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and read a dozen books on slavery as I drove around. It really opened my eyes to how much slavery affects America even to this day. I went to the Natchez Trace where 2 million slaves were walked south from Nashville. Barely known now
I stayed in a Plantation house, 20 miles from New Orleans, where I had one of the few possibly and truly supernatural experiences of my life. It's a long story but as soon as I was shown my room in an otherwise deserted building (the whole thing was like Psycho) I got the heebie jeebies. It was surely haunted. It was awful, a sense of throbbing evil
I was up half the night freakin' out (the room full of vintage dolls didn't help) and when I finally slept I had weird vivid horrifying dreams of ghoulish children all over the house, and playing with a strange determination, in the garden
In the morning the staff returned and I said "Er, is this place meant to be haunted"? And the chef (lovely woman) said "Oh yeah, we get people sayin they can hear children playing on the stairs and in the garden". Then I told her my dreams and she went very pale
I researched the building later that day and it was the scene of a tremendous atrocity against rebel slaves in about 1810 and notorious in general for cruelty to slaves, including kids
I'll try and look up a reference
So, yes, I get the whole Original Sin thing
That sounds like the LaLaurie Mansion in New Orleans.
So first Keir Starmer and now the Premier League distance themselves from BLM.. and I'm the one "losing credibilty" for pointing out right from the beginning that they were far left cranks that people should avoid being associated with
Yes. Get over it already, you look as obsessed as a Remainer banging on about the bus.
Wokes getting annoyed that they were duped yet again
Whilst I get where the Premier League are trying to come from, the argument that BLM is being “hijacked” by elements with another agenda is somewhat ridiculous when those “elements” were behind the slogan in the first place. The “taking the knee” symbol had a somewhat different purpose originally to how it is being interpreted now.
Someone made a decent point the other day saying that the PL adopting “BLM” didn’t exactly show a lot of confidence in their existing and active anti racism campaigns (“Kick it out” etc).
Importing stupid Americanisms is pathetic in my opinion. Just gives the arseholes in this country something to virtue signal and pretend they give a crap. I forecast it will not outlast the summer.
I remember watching it in 1988. For some reason it seemed like most of the country was obsessed with the show at the time. When you watch clips now you wonder what all the fuss was about.
For a lot of peope it was a kind of a cult. I watched it a lot around that time. It was a soap opera which you did not have to take seriously. One which didn't care if pillars wobbled as someone walked past. In those days the show was also lucky enough to have 3 young adults whose career would have been sucessful even without that great springboard.
Do the people traversing the border come from the hotspots in England? Cases in London probably have no effect on those in Scotland.
It is a bit of a daft headline.
Even if you get rid of it locally, for all values of locally, there will always be somewhere to import it from, whether that is England, Yorkshire, or the next street. For quite some time to come.
Still shows what a decent government can do as opposed to a bunch of chancers and grifters
It shows why comparing countries of vastly different sizes is not a worthwhile game to play. Unless the larger countries have a viable/effective way to close internal borders and effectively compartmentalise themselves into a number of smaller states (eg. Australia).
All countries (assuming a basic level of imported infection) will have areas that are hit to a greater or lesser extent. However unless the areas can be isolated it is both harder to limit the scale of the outbreak in the harder hit areas as well as prevent cross contamination with others.
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Looking at the current 538 averages, I make Pennsylvania the tipping point state, where Biden currently has a 8.0% lead. Alternatively, Biden's national lead is 9.6% and I guess Trump would need to be no more than 2% behind in votes nationally to have a good chance of winning, so either way the polls would need to be 8% out - and in the right direction. It's hard to say what the probability is of that kind of polling error.
The last French presidential election the final polling average underestimated Macron's second round victory by about 10%, so these things maybe aren't that unusual.
Edit - NB we probably only really notice them when they are that far wrong AND predict the wrong winner, unlike in Macron's case
Do we know where the Cumbria outbreak has been? Has it been in the villages or is it mainly in places like Carlisle and Barrow?
Kendal was quite bad last time I looked.
Wasn't there a problem in Barrow? Traced to a submariner in a bar?
"A single party is thought to have sown much of the infection in the town. At least six people who attended the gathering – held perfectly legally before lockdown – are known to have later been diagnosed with the virus. One of them died.
But the virus’s race around the community may then have been helped by a number of environmental factors: tightly packed and often crowded terrace housing, high numbers of pre-existing health conditions connected to the area’s industrial past, and an economy reliant on a BAE Systems shipyard and plant where nuclear submarines are built and which employ almost 10,000 workers."
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Looking at the current 538 averages, I make Pennsylvania the tipping point state, where Biden currently has a 8.0% lead. Alternatively, Biden's national lead is 9.6% and I guess Trump would need to be no more than 2% behind in votes nationally to have a good chance of winning, so either way the polls would need to be 8% out - and in the right direction. It's hard to say what the probability is of that kind of polling error.
The last French presidential election the final polling average underestimated Macron's second round victory by about 10%, so these things maybe aren't that unusual.
Edit - NB we probably only really notice them when they are that far wrong AND predict the wrong winner, unlike in Macron's case
Oops misread the post - it is anyway a prediction of who will win the popular vote, in which case maybe 98% as a nowcast isn't far off, but surely a bit high for a prediction of the electoral college winner
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Looking at the current 538 averages, I make Pennsylvania the tipping point state, where Biden currently has a 8.0% lead. Alternatively, Biden's national lead is 9.6% and I guess Trump would need to be no more than 2% behind in votes nationally to have a good chance of winning, so either way the polls would need to be 8% out - and in the right direction. It's hard to say what the probability is of that kind of polling error.
The last French presidential election the final polling average underestimated Macron's second round victory by about 10%, so these things maybe aren't that unusual.
Edit - NB we probably only really notice them when they are that far wrong AND predict the wrong winner, unlike in Macron's case
Oops misread the post - it is anyway a prediction of who will win the popular vote, in which case maybe 98% as a nowcast isn't far off, but surely a bit high for a prediction of the electoral college winner
Definitely. People don't use the concept of swing much in the US, but on the whole opinion does shift in parallel across states. If Trump picked up 5% he'd be highly competitive in the Electoral College.
There seem to be few floating voters, though - opinion about Trump is very entrenched. The Democrat worries have to be, in order of risk:
* Low turnout if the virus is raging and voting feels like a life-threatening risk, especially for African Americans. * Relatedly, voter suppression, refusal/invalidation of postal ballots * Biden seriously underperforming in the debates
The last seems the least likely, because Biden performed OK in the primary debates overall, and frankly a large part of his vote is simply anti-Trump to the point that they'd vote Biden even if he did have early onset dementia.
The first is more serious. I'm as politically motivated as anyone and have never missed any election at any level. Would I risk my life to change the Labour total by 1, though? Um. Maybe.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
So you put Trump's chances quite a bit higher. I'd add that my 40% chance for Trump is assuming that Trump and Biden are the Republican and Democrat candidates - I have no idea what the chances are that either might drop out, or drop dead, or be forced out.
I'm not really surprised that GOP chairs sound confident - isn't that always the case?
I think you would expect more grumblings about the need to change strategy etc coming through. You would also expect more Republican Senators, candidates etc to distance themselves to save their seats.
One other thing re betting now is that, whomever Biden picks as a VP candidate will be judged as a President elect because of the concerns about his health. That could influence the odds.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
Your points on turnout are good. But here's the thing: that's one datapoint. Pretty much every other datapoint looks terrible for President Trump.
- Economics - Coronavirus - Number of Registered Republicans - Opinion polls
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that there is about a quarter of the electorate who is seriously pumped about Mr Trump. Come rain or shine, pandemic or no pandemic, they believe (rightly) that he cares for them, and has their interests at heart.
And that quarter turns out in Primaries (although they didn't turn out in sufficient numbers at the midterms in 2018).
But is it enough this year?
It might be. There's no doubt that Biden is a monumentally awful candidate compared to (say) Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker. He's probably suffering from the early stages of dementia, and in a normal election would be hammered.
If there was no CV-19, I think that Trump would be clear favourite. Incumbents are usually (although not always) re-elected. Back in the latter half of last year I not only forecast his victory, but welcomed it.
But there is CV-19. The US economy is not re-opening, it's re-closing. The CV-19 hotspots are in Republican swing states, not Democrat ones. They're in Arizona, Florida and Georgia (and perhaps Texas). If even one of those flips, then (given the paucity of options for Trump pickups) it's going to be hard for Trump to hold the Presidency.
So, I'm going for a 35-40% chance of a Trump re-election. And even that requires CV-19 to be brought under control. If CV-19 - and/or its economic impacts - continue to be felt in November, then no amount of woke-idiocy is going to kill the Democrats.
Those are all good points Robert and I think how Trump has handled CV-19 has been, ahem, "mixed", I do think Trump has a good chance of flipping Minnesota (Biden is against the XL pipeline which will cost him votes) and possibly Nevada which gives him leeway.
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Looking at the current 538 averages, I make Pennsylvania the tipping point state, where Biden currently has a 8.0% lead. Alternatively, Biden's national lead is 9.6% and I guess Trump would need to be no more than 2% behind in votes nationally to have a good chance of winning, so either way the polls would need to be 8% out - and in the right direction. It's hard to say what the probability is of that kind of polling error.
The last French presidential election the final polling average underestimated Macron's second round victory by about 10%, so these things maybe aren't that unusual.
Edit - NB we probably only really notice them when they are that far wrong AND predict the wrong winner, unlike in Macron's case
Oops misread the post - it is anyway a prediction of who will win the popular vote, in which case maybe 98% as a nowcast isn't far off, but surely a bit high for a prediction of the electoral college winner
Definitely. People don't use the concept of swing much in the US, but on the whole opinion does shift in parallel across states. If Trump picked up 5% he'd be highly competitive in the Electoral College.
There seem to be few floating voters, though - opinion about Trump is very entrenched. The Democrat worries have to be, in order of risk:
* Low turnout if the virus is raging and voting feels like a life-threatening risk, especially for African Americans. * Relatedly, voter suppression, refusal/invalidation of postal ballots * Biden seriously underperforming in the debates
The last seems the least likely, because Biden performed OK in the primary debates overall, and frankly a large part of his vote is simply anti-Trump to the point that they'd vote Biden even if he did have early onset dementia.
The first is more serious. I'm as politically motivated as anyone and have never missed any election at any level. Would I risk my life to change the Labour total by 1, though? Um. Maybe.
2 is a big worry. Postal ballots could be a legal battlefield that will allow Trump to remain in the WH.
Dems need a massive win to be honest, or trouble is almost guaranteed imho.
Except that the Republicans flipped a Democrat House seat in a heavily suburban area two months back and increased their 2016 vote in another heavily suburban seat last week.
But you won't hear much about that in the Huffington Post
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
The first is more serious. I'm as politically motivated as anyone and have never missed any election at any level. Would I risk my life to change the Labour total by 1, though? Um. Maybe.
As an individual there's a lot you can do to minimise your risk - wear a mask, wash your hands as soon as possible afterwards - and you're only there for a short period of time. Even if you have to queue for a while that's probably okay as it will be mostly outdoors.
It's the poll workers who will be at risk, coming into contact with hundreds or thousands of different people during the day. And if they don't volunteer then there's no polling station.
There will be many fewer polling stations. It will affect turnout, and may make voter intimidation easier.
I expect to see the Trump campaign use the courts to try and stop counting of postal votes.
Except that the Republicans flipped a Democrat House seat in a heavily suburban area two months back and increased their 2016 vote in another heavily suburban seat last week.
But you won't hear much about that in the Huffington Post
I look forward to your next poll unskewing.
Oh God no way, not after the shellacking I received for this one
Apparently it's all the fault of John Bolton, John Kelly etc who are 'The Swamp' and Trump is the only one who can protect America from 'The Swamp'. Of course he ignores the fact these were all Trump hires in the first place!
He's too smart to believe this stuff surely, and is just pumping it out for the Fox audience I assume?
Sadly for the Trump sycophants, the president has a history of using these people for his own purposes then tossing them to one side when they're of no use.
So first Keir Starmer and now the Premier League distance themselves from BLM.. and I'm the one "losing credibilty" for pointing out right from the beginning that they were far left cranks that people should avoid being associated with
Yes. Get over it already, you look as obsessed as a Remainer banging on about the bus.
Wokes getting annoyed that they were duped yet again
Whilst I get where the Premier League are trying to come from, the argument that BLM is being “hijacked” by elements with another agenda is somewhat ridiculous when those “elements” were behind the slogan in the first place. The “taking the knee” symbol had a somewhat different purpose originally to how it is being interpreted now.
Someone made a decent point the other day saying that the PL adopting “BLM” didn’t exactly show a lot of confidence in their existing and active anti racism campaigns (“Kick it out” etc).
Importing stupid Americanisms is pathetic in my opinion. Just gives the arseholes in this country something to virtue signal and pretend they give a crap. I forecast it will not outlast the summer.
I would never go that far, but I do maintain that initially at least there was too much jumping on an attempt to be trendy and make a global trend, making it seem focused on an American context which does not match the issues other countries undoubtedly have, and thus may not be as effective as intended.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
So you put Trump's chances quite a bit higher. I'd add that my 40% chance for Trump is assuming that Trump and Biden are the Republican and Democrat candidates - I have no idea what the chances are that either might drop out, or drop dead, or be forced out.
I'm not really surprised that GOP chairs sound confident - isn't that always the case?
I think you would expect more grumblings about the need to change strategy etc coming through. You would also expect more Republican Senators, candidates etc to distance themselves to save their seats.
One other thing re betting now is that, whomever Biden picks as a VP candidate will be judged as a President elect because of the concerns about his health. That could influence the odds.
They cannot distance themselves because to do so would lose Trump's core vote. This is not really a traditional Republican vote but it will lend supprt to such Republicans who defer to Donald.
There are legitimate concerns about the health of both candidates.
On the latest batch of polls, I should say the odds on the election are about right. As we stand, Trump has about a 33% of being reelected. Still time for him to turn it round.
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
Apparently it's all the fault of John Bolton, John Kelly etc who are 'The Swamp' and Trump is the only one who can protect America from 'The Swamp'. Of course he ignores the fact these were all Trump hires in the first place!
He's too smart to believe this stuff surely, and is just pumping it out for the Fox audience I assume?
Sadly for the Trump sycophants, the president has a history of using these people for his own purposes then tossing them to one side when they're of no use.
Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump).
Their model produces a number on their website that they update every day, you don't need to read the blog posts and try to guess the general vibe.
What was it saying a month out (I don't recall TBH)?
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
Sat in the office - its very surreal. I've been furloughed off for three weeks and its only my 3rd day in since mid March. Walked across the road to Costa with the boss - very very surreal.
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
Your points on turnout are good. But here's the thing: that's one datapoint. Pretty much every other datapoint looks terrible for President Trump.
- Economics - Coronavirus - Number of Registered Republicans - Opinion polls
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that there is about a quarter of the electorate who is seriously pumped about Mr Trump. Come rain or shine, pandemic or no pandemic, they believe (rightly) that he cares for them, and has their interests at heart.
And that quarter turns out in Primaries (although they didn't turn out in sufficient numbers at the midterms in 2018).
But is it enough this year?
It might be. There's no doubt that Biden is a monumentally awful candidate compared to (say) Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker. He's probably suffering from the early stages of dementia, and in a normal election would be hammered.
If there was no CV-19, I think that Trump would be clear favourite. Incumbents are usually (although not always) re-elected. Back in the latter half of last year I not only forecast his victory, but welcomed it.
But there is CV-19. The US economy is not re-opening, it's re-closing. The CV-19 hotspots are in Republican swing states, not Democrat ones. They're in Arizona, Florida and Georgia (and perhaps Texas). If even one of those flips, then (given the paucity of options for Trump pickups) it's going to be hard for Trump to hold the Presidency.
So, I'm going for a 35-40% chance of a Trump re-election. And even that requires CV-19 to be brought under control. If CV-19 - and/or its economic impacts - continue to be felt in November, then no amount of woke-idiocy is going to kill the Democrats.
Those are all good points Robert and I think how Trump has handled CV-19 has been, ahem, "mixed", I do think Trump has a good chance of flipping Minnesota (Biden is against the XL pipeline which will cost him votes) and possibly Nevada which gives him leeway.
The route to a Trump re-election is through the Midwest, certainly, and to a lesser extent the South.
If he can hold all his states in those two regions then he can do awfully badly in the West and North-East and only lose PA and AZ to still have 275 votes in the Electoral College. If he wins MN too then he can survive losing NC in the South.
But the last poll in MN was Biden 58-42 Trump, so the evidence for a strong Trump performance in the Midwest is mixed.
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Even as a now cast, that's just wrong.
Do you think so? I mean, for all the pollsters to be that wrong would be a monster polling error on the scale of 1948...
Well, the state polls were definitely wrong in 2016 and this time round, it looks like it will be the same at this stage - one poll with Michigan at +1 for Biden and one with a double digit lead, both can't be right. And, if Biden is +10 ahead nationally, he shouldn't be only showing +1/+2 leads in NC as he has done for the last few polls.
Shy Trumpsters are the worry.
My Trump-supporting friend in the US says there are a lot of them. In my experience, Trump supporters are anything but shy. But if they are, how does one know they exist?
I think there is a difference between being personally loud with friends and telling a pollster your view. Anecdotally, I would say there are a fair few people in the States who believe that "the Government" is looking at your data and they tend to be more on the Trump end of things. If you have that view, chances are you are likely to be suspicious about answering a pollster.
Something odd about the vp market is someone keeps backing Joe Biden. Look at his graph. Whether that is the bot (as punters cash out) or money transfers (unlikely) or a real backer with a theory, who knows?
Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump).
Their model produces a number on their website that they update every day, you don't need to read the blog posts and try to guess the general vibe.
What was it saying a month out (I don't recall TBH)?
Over the course of the campaign it varies between even (Trump barely ahead) and almost 90/10 in Hillary's favour.
Thanks Edmund for the link. On July 1st 2016, looks like Silver was predicting a 78% chance of a Clinton win.
71.4% to 28.6% by election day. Since Trump won 3 states, giving him the presidency by 80,000 votes whilst losing the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000, a 29% chance looks about right. He was lucky.
As an aside, does anyone happen to know if shooting workmen making noise next door is still considered illegal? Asking for a friend trying to get some work done and not necessarily aided by the use of heavy machinery about 15' away.
Edited extra bit: although not as odd as posting this message causing Chrome to go wonky and only show a tiny bit of webpages at the top of the window, with a new tab backdrop in the lower half. Weird. And annoying.
Something odd about the vp market is someone keeps backing Joe Biden. Look at his graph. Whether that is the bot (as punters cash out) or money transfers (unlikely) or a real backer with a theory, who knows?
thanks. i'm not sure i've quite ever understood the basic BF graph. volume is in £ is it?
I looked at the data for the USA Today survey that came out today with a +12 Biden lead. One very noticeable feature was that it looks like they have done is massively overweight the number of those with a Bachelors and higher degree in the survey and massively underweighted those without a high school degree. So from what I make out, the survey has 24% of respondents with High School or Less vs. 40% in the 2018 census bureau data, and have 42% of respondents with a Bachelor or higher degree vs 32% in the census data.
So no wonder it gives the Democrats such a big lead.
This is why I have don;t have a huge amount of belief in the polls. It is increasingly evident that educational attainment is a key driver of whether someone will vote for Trump or Biden. If the polls are skewing their respondents to those with degrees and away from those that don't, it is not representing the true demographic split
538 rates Suffolk University polling as 'A'. That's good enough for me.
I think the results are good enough for you because it is what you want to hear. 538 is not God and has been know to get it wrong before. Nate Silver's a*se covering about the 2016 election can't hide that fact
Silver's model gave Trump a 30% chance and he repeatedly stated that a Trump win was within a normal-sized polling error, and his model predicted the US popular vote very accurately. The problem is that people are bad at interpreting probability, not Silver doing arse-covering.
I'm assuming you have bet quite heavily on a Trump victory given you seem hell-bent on talking up his chances and delving in Plato-esque "unskewing" of the polls.
When you put out a header entitled "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else" , it reads a lot like self-justification. Certainly if you read his posts beforehand, you wouldn't have gotten the belief that Trump had such a high chance (TBF, he did mention a lot of late voters swung for Trump). As far as I know, 538 is not a non-profit site and Silver does consultancy work so he has a vested interest in a narrative that states he did not get it wrong.
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
I read 538 before the 2016 vote and they very clearly gave Trump around 30% chance of winning, so maybe you didn't look at 538 much before the 2016 election? Also, after the election they never claimed to have got it right, just that they did better than some other "data driven" forecasters, which is objectively true.
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
I have to admit it was four years ago so you are probably right but it was my recollection he wasn't that bullish. I do know you could get 6/1 on the day for Trump which suggests the betting markets were discounting Silver having such a high chance.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
So you put Trump's chances quite a bit higher. I'd add that my 40% chance for Trump is assuming that Trump and Biden are the Republican and Democrat candidates - I have no idea what the chances are that either might drop out, or drop dead, or be forced out.
I'm not really surprised that GOP chairs sound confident - isn't that always the case?
I think you would expect more grumblings about the need to change strategy etc coming through. You would also expect more Republican Senators, candidates etc to distance themselves to save their seats.
One other thing re betting now is that, whomever Biden picks as a VP candidate will be judged as a President elect because of the concerns about his health. That could influence the odds.
No doubt some Republicans will distance themselves from Trump if they think that will help them win. But for most it would likely lose them more votes than they would gain, and would also make them unpopular amongst Republican voters, so they won't, even if they are convinced Trump is going to lose.
I agree that Biden's VP pick is likely to lose him some votes whoever he chooses. I think it's a real danger for him, and I don't see a good way out for him. I'm sure Trump would relish focusing his attacks on Kamala Harris.
There's also the fact that current polling averages are based mostly on registered voters polling (or even all adults polling), and there's a good chance that Trump will pick up a point or 2 when polling switches to "likely voters".
Some sense. Although really we can do both, which means a lack of histrionics about, say, Roman emperors for having slaves whilst still noting slavery is bad.
Most Roman slaves were white of course, including Celtic Britons
Comments
In 1918 when word was gripped by Spanish Influenza
>> in America (eastern) Samoa, the head official (US Navy officer) took strong measures. All incoming ships and their passenger were subject to strict quarantine. Cooperation was secured with local leaders, to the extent that chiefs turned away their own kinfolk trying to come in from other islands. Result = zero deaths from Spanish Flu
>> in New Zealand (western) Samoa, government officials did NOT quarantine incoming vessels. There was little respect or cooperation between the NZ rulers and Samoan locals; at one point when a school principal asked the governor for food for his students, he was advised the could have a dead horse outside his gate. As the pandemic took hold and raged among the native and garrison he refused offers of aid from American Samoa. Result = 22% of population dead
Here was what the Samoans had to say about this afterwards:
There are two islands in the South Pacific, Tutuila and Upolu,
Tutuila under the American flag, Upolu that of New Zealand.
God has sent down a sickness on the world,
And all the lands are filled with suffering.
The two islands are forty miles apart,
But in Upolu, the Island of New Zealand, many are dead,
While in Tutuila, the American island, not a one is dead.
Why? In Tutuila they love the men of their villages;
In Upolu they are doomed to punishment and to death.
God in heaven bless the American governor and flag.
IF only more leaders today had the sense & sensibility of that Navy commander a century ago. For example, not may blessing the American president today.
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/how-american-samoa-kept-pandemic-bay
As to your other comment, quite frankly I think you are out of order. I was on this site when Plato was posting and she had a reputation for putting links to alt-right sites and so on, which I haven't done and would not do as I don't agree with their content. What I have consistently tried to point out is that the odds of a Trump victory are higher than what people think and I have outlined the reasons why, the most important one being that what is being said in the polls is not necessarily being seen on the ground. I haven't bet heavily because I think many things could happen and you would be a mug to bet now. But to be accused of "Plato-esque unskewing" of the polls for raising questions about them says more about you (and Anabobazina).
Anyway, what do you think the odds of Trump winning are?
I think it's probably still going to be close, but Biden is clearly favorite at the moment and could win by a lot. If the election were tomorrow I'd give Biden about 90% chance of winning. It's a long way to go but I still wouldn't give Trump more than 40% chance.
I think you make some valid points, but the fact you're still talking about a bye election from 2 months ago makes it seem like your case isn't very strong.
My Mother, who retired to North Norfolk some years ago, relates how she only knows one person who claims to have had it (said individual being a notorious hypochondriac, whose case wasn't confirmed by test,) and that there have been no other cases of which she's aware in her village. The district as a whole has one of the highest age profiles of any in the whole country and is therefore chock full of vulnerable people but has got off very lightly.
Large tracts of England - East Anglia, Lincolnshire and the West Country all spring to mind - will be full of towns and villages that have dodged the bullets entirely or suffered only the odd isolated fatality; largely rural Cumbria, for reasons which surpasseth all understanding, hasn't been nearly so fortunate.
And then at the other end of the scale you have these horror stories from some of the London boroughs, where there are streets in which every third or fourth house has suffered a bereavement. Different communities are having very disparate experiences in this pandemic.
Which suggests that “schools are safe” is an opinion rather than a certainty.
Safe for the vast majority of kids, but possibly not for all the adults they will interact with.
Re Trump's chances, I would put them at around 55%-60%. Your point re the by-election 2 months ago is valid but the other by-election was last week in a mainly white suburban area and there were no signs of softening. I tend to overweight what people are doing / saying and, for me, the recent Politico article interviewing local GOP Chairs and stating their confidence didn't sound like a party which feels like it is losing support or confidence. Same goes for the vote in PA where the Republicans turned out more voters then Democrats for a primary election even given the latter's advantage. It could be that is wrong and, as mentioned, it could be events change but the Republicans' actions at the moment don't feel like panic (although the tone in the last few days has been a bit more Trump needs to moderate his stance).
It has been shown to help people recover faster from the disease.
A statement from the Department of Health and Human services says Trump struck an "amazing" deal with Gilead for 500,000 doses which amounts to 100% of Gilead's production in July, 90% of it in August and 90% in September.
A treatment course of remdesivir is, on average, 6.25 vials.
When he drove his car into Cape Charles in 1962, as he stepped out of his car, a gentleman walked up to him and said "Welcome to Cape Charles, Mr Thibideau." He asked the local how he knew his name. "you're the only person in town not from here, and we're expecting someone called Mr Thibideau."
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#odds
Over the course of the campaign it varies between even (Trump barely ahead) and almost 90/10 in Hillary's favour.
The analysis is from the US CDC.
They haven’t published the full paper yet, and I will look out for it.
I’d very much prefer that it’s not the case, but I said last week that the “schools are safe” declaration was an assertion rather than a fact. It might still be true, but we just don’t know.
If we’re definitely reopening them in September, we need to be aware of it.
- Economics
- Coronavirus
- Number of Registered Republicans
- Opinion polls
Now, I agree wholeheartedly that there is about a quarter of the electorate who is seriously pumped about Mr Trump. Come rain or shine, pandemic or no pandemic, they believe (rightly) that he cares for them, and has their interests at heart.
And that quarter turns out in Primaries (although they didn't turn out in sufficient numbers at the midterms in 2018).
But is it enough this year?
It might be. There's no doubt that Biden is a monumentally awful candidate compared to (say) Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker. He's probably suffering from the early stages of dementia, and in a normal election would be hammered.
If there was no CV-19, I think that Trump would be clear favourite. Incumbents are usually (although not always) re-elected. Back in the latter half of last year I not only forecast his victory, but welcomed it.
But there is CV-19. The US economy is not re-opening, it's re-closing. The CV-19 hotspots are in Republican swing states, not Democrat ones. They're in Arizona, Florida and Georgia (and perhaps Texas). If even one of those flips, then (given the paucity of options for Trump pickups) it's going to be hard for Trump to hold the Presidency.
So, I'm going for a 35-40% chance of a Trump re-election. And even that requires CV-19 to be brought under control. If CV-19 - and/or its economic impacts - continue to be felt in November, then no amount of woke-idiocy is going to kill the Democrats.
But then, as you say, Cumbria...
I'm not really surprised that GOP chairs sound confident - isn't that always the case?
Put this all together and I have much more trust in 538 models than individual polls, especially US polls.
I find it so annoying that so many people interpret predicting a 70% chance of winning as "definitely will win". Still some people on this forum certainly make money out of people who do not undertstand this.
Important information. I would also like to see a similar study for asymptomatic corona positive children and adolesants. That is important, because it seems that many children have very mild symptoms.
Useless fact: the first iPhone went on sale two days after Tony Blair stepped down as prime minister. 27th and 29th June 2007.
https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president
I guess this is what 538 would call a "now-cast", ie what you'd expect if we were seeing these polls on election day?
Someone made a decent point the other day saying that the PL adopting “BLM” didn’t exactly show a lot of confidence in their existing and active anti racism campaigns (“Kick it out” etc).
It was crap though.
It is also noticeable that Worldometer/John Hopkins university is clearly very US focussed, and I doubt applies anything like the same amount of effort/resources in interpreting figures coming out of other countries.
No one who ever played X-COM would want to stake anything important on a mere 70% chance...
All countries (assuming a basic level of imported infection) will have areas that are hit to a greater or lesser extent. However unless the areas can be isolated it is both harder to limit the scale of the outbreak in the harder hit areas as well as prevent cross contamination with others.
At the same time in 2016 what did the polls and odds say in respect of Trump and Clinton?
I have no interest in who becomes President but I like a bet and I suspect Trump may be overpriced at the moment.
The last French presidential election the final polling average underestimated Macron's second round victory by about 10%, so these things maybe aren't that unusual.
Edit - NB we probably only really notice them when they are that far wrong AND predict the wrong winner, unlike in Macron's case
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.170211116
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
So July 1st is
Clinton 44.6
Trump 39.8.
Graph for this time for comparison:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html#polls
But the virus’s race around the community may then have been helped by a number of environmental factors: tightly packed and often crowded terrace housing, high numbers of pre-existing health conditions connected to the area’s industrial past, and an economy reliant on a BAE Systems shipyard and plant where nuclear submarines are built and which employ almost 10,000 workers."
Which also led to lots of testing.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-barrow-cumbria-covid-infection-rates-cases-uk-a9516636.html
I'll be staying at home a while longer.
There seem to be few floating voters, though - opinion about Trump is very entrenched. The Democrat worries have to be, in order of risk:
* Low turnout if the virus is raging and voting feels like a life-threatening risk, especially for African Americans.
* Relatedly, voter suppression, refusal/invalidation of postal ballots
* Biden seriously underperforming in the debates
The last seems the least likely, because Biden performed OK in the primary debates overall, and frankly a large part of his vote is simply anti-Trump to the point that they'd vote Biden even if he did have early onset dementia.
The first is more serious. I'm as politically motivated as anyone and have never missed any election at any level. Would I risk my life to change the Labour total by 1, though? Um. Maybe.
One other thing re betting now is that, whomever Biden picks as a VP candidate will be judged as a President elect because of the concerns about his health. That could influence the odds.
https://verify-it-c19data.co.uk/ords/verify02/r/covid-19/weekly-2?session=4636881124151
Dems need a massive win to be honest, or trouble is almost guaranteed imho.
It's the poll workers who will be at risk, coming into contact with hundreds or thousands of different people during the day. And if they don't volunteer then there's no polling station.
There will be many fewer polling stations. It will affect turnout, and may make voter intimidation easier.
I expect to see the Trump campaign use the courts to try and stop counting of postal votes.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/steve-hilton-bolton-book-trump-swamp
Apparently it's all the fault of John Bolton, John Kelly etc who are 'The Swamp' and Trump is the only one who can protect America from 'The Swamp'. Of course he ignores the fact these were all Trump hires in the first place!
He's too smart to believe this stuff surely, and is just pumping it out for the Fox audience I assume?
Sadly for the Trump sycophants, the president has a history of using these people for his own purposes then tossing them to one side when they're of no use.
There are legitimate concerns about the health of both candidates.
On the latest batch of polls, I should say the odds on the election are about right. As we stand, Trump has about a 33% of being reelected. Still time for him to turn it round.
Rice back in as 2nd fav at 8.4
If he can hold all his states in those two regions then he can do awfully badly in the West and North-East and only lose PA and AZ to still have 275 votes in the Electoral College. If he wins MN too then he can survive losing NC in the South.
But the last poll in MN was Biden 58-42 Trump, so the evidence for a strong Trump performance in the Midwest is mixed.
Since Trump won 3 states, giving him the presidency by 80,000 votes whilst losing the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000, a 29% chance looks about right.
He was lucky.
England Pillar 1 positives, by low level local authority, by specimen date. Ordered by summing the last 15 days, largest at the top.
Colour starts at 5 cases per day.
How's Barnsley looking?
Must be odd, Mr. Pioneers.
As an aside, does anyone happen to know if shooting workmen making noise next door is still considered illegal? Asking for a friend trying to get some work done and not necessarily aided by the use of heavy machinery about 15' away.
Edited extra bit: although not as odd as posting this message causing Chrome to go wonky and only show a tiny bit of webpages at the top of the window, with a new tab backdrop in the lower half. Weird. And annoying.
It is going to be five years of empty promises.
He did apologise but they need to get their facts correct
On Airbus the 1,700 jobs will go over the next 6 months with many offered early retirement terms
I agree that Biden's VP pick is likely to lose him some votes whoever he chooses. I think it's a real danger for him, and I don't see a good way out for him. I'm sure Trump would relish focusing his attacks on Kamala Harris.
There's also the fact that current polling averages are based mostly on registered voters polling (or even all adults polling), and there's a good chance that Trump will pick up a point or 2 when polling switches to "likely voters".