pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 22, 2023 18:35:18 GMT
I've had a quick look at the 2023 predictions game so far. It isn't over because there are a whole bunch of metrics that get measured on 31 December, but by my reckoning Expatr is leading at present (although it is close between several people at the top). Congratulations to lululemonmustdobetter for being the only person to get the number of parliamentary by-election changes of control exactly correct.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 22, 2023 18:37:25 GMT
Hope everyone manages to have a great festive break, and avoids any untoward outcomes.
This one started early.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by James E on Dec 22, 2023 19:49:09 GMT
Labour will, I think, be happy with the year end polls. [edit] ...this ineptitude, this simplism, and we hope for better days. But such is the damage, that wait could be a long one. I don't disagree really, but will add my note of caution yet again. In late August 1969 the Tories under Ted Heath still enjoyed a 15% lead in the polls over Labour. They went on to win the June 1970 GE - but only by 2.4% and the Tory victory came as a great shock. For a slightly more recent comparison, I think the precedent of 1996-97 is more relevant here than 1969-70. Looking back to the 5 polls done in April 1996 - so 4 years on from the previous GE, as we are now - the polls averaged Con 28%, Lab 53%, LD 15%. The final polls showed Labour 18 points ahead, so making a like-with -like comparison, the Tories' recovery was by 7 points. The polls also overstated Labour, but polling error is a different thing to Government recovery. If the Conservatives can make a similar recovery now, they would cut the deficit from 18 to 11 points. For a couple of other comparisons to the 4-year point: In May 2009, the Tories averaged a 14% lead, which was again reduced by 7 points in the final pre-election polls. And in May 2014, Labour had around a 3% lead, which turned into a 1% Con lead in the final polls - a 4 point movement.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 22, 2023 19:55:35 GMT
"The Church of Scotland, which is the Established Church in that nation of the UK, doesn't have bishops, so does not have this problem."
The Church of Scotland is not established. The Acts of Union gave it certain safeguards but it is entirely independent of the state otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 22, 2023 20:22:50 GMT
So it seems no significant reform of the Lords from Labour which is not a surprise. It also kills the Brown Report stone dead so far as protecting and embedding devolution in the UK constitution is concerned which just leaves piecemeal devolution within England in line with current Government policy. x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1737956248421621925?s=20
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Dec 22, 2023 20:26:02 GMT
Worrying stuff: www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/12/22/poetin-vervalst-de-geschiedenis-maar-is-helder-over-zijn-plannen-a4185131 In the last couple of months on the Flightradar24 site I've noticed that US and NATO surveillance flights are now often flying up and down the Finnish/Russian border as well as encircling Kaliningrad which was not the case previously, they'd be more or less limited to areas adjoining Ukraine in Poland, Romania and the Black sea. I also noticed commercial aircraft appearing to divert around an area of Russia just behind the southern part of the Finnish border. Could be nothing of course. Putin is no doubt emboldened by the rise of the far right in certain European countries and may be tempted to miscalculate European and US resolve, miscalculations of an opponent's resolve being of course a major reason large wars break out. Europe really needs a huge shift in it's defence thinking and soon as relying on the US is no guarantee anymore and Putin knows that. To deter a Russia that appears it may be hellbent on enacting some revenge fantasy for past humiliation on us we must all spend billions more on defence, especially Germany and also make our commitment to Ukraine ironclad, including I would say stationing some of our forces in Ukraine.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 22, 2023 21:01:00 GMT
So it seems no significant reform of the Lords from Labour which is not a surprise. It also kills the Brown Report stone dead so far as protecting and embedding devolution in the UK constitution is concerned which just leaves piecemeal devolution within England in line with current Government policy. x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1737956248421621925?s=20One journalist quoting speculation by another journalist, i.e. meaningless. If we believed journalistic hype Hunt would have abolished IHT in the last budget. I have no doubt that during an election campaign Labour will be forced to clarify how devolution will be safeguarded via the HoL and how convincing the answer is or isn't can be judged then.
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,688
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Dec 22, 2023 21:06:09 GMT
I don't disagree really, but will add my note of caution yet again. In late August 1969 the Tories under Ted Heath still enjoyed a 15% lead in the polls over Labour. They went on to win the June 1970 GE - but only by 2.4% and the Tory victory came as a great shock. For a slightly more recent comparison, I think the precedent of 1996-97 is more relevant here than 1969-70. Looking back to the 5 polls done in April 1996 - so 4 years on from the previous GE, as we are now - the polls averaged Con 28%, Lab 53%, LD 15%. The final polls showed Labour 18 points ahead, so making a like-with -like comparison, the Tories' recovery was by 7 points. The polls also overstated Labour, but polling error is a different thing to Government recovery. If the Conservatives can make a similar recovery now, they would cut the deficit from 18 to 11 points. For a couple of other comparisons to the 4-year point: In May 2009, the Tories averaged a 14% lead, which was again reduced by 7 points in the final pre-election polls. And in May 2014, Labour had around a 3% lead, which turned into a 1% Con lead in the final polls - a 4 point movement. Another example. Polls in January/February 1979 gave the Tories leads of 19%/20%. On May 3rd that year they won the election by 7% - so a narrowng of 12%/13% over just 3 months or so. I have long believed that Callaghan could have delayed that election to 7th June to coincide with the first Euro elections. Had he done so, I suspect the Tory lead could have narrowed to 2% /3% - probably a Hung Parliament.
|
|
jib
Member
Posts: 2,831
Member is Online
|
Post by jib on Dec 22, 2023 21:16:21 GMT
An interesting few months ahead.
We only need to look to the Maybot 2017 campaign to realise how quickly an "unassailable" lead can evaporate, even if in fact she did rather well.
It is an election that Labour should win, but the Tories have a considerable minority that they can aggregate.
|
|
|
Post by James E on Dec 22, 2023 21:18:37 GMT
graham"Another example. Polls in January/February 1979 gave the Tories leads of 19%/20%. On May 3rd that year they won the election by 7% - so a narrowng of 12%/13% over just 3 months or so." You seem to be selecting the highest leads from the polls in question rather than looking at the average. There were indeed 2 polls with 19 and 20% Con leads in Jan & Feb1979, but the average of a very mixed set of 5 was a Con lead of 9-10%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,990
|
Post by neilj on Dec 22, 2023 21:43:23 GMT
graham"Another example. Polls in January/February 1979 gave the Tories leads of 19%/20%. On May 3rd that year they won the election by 7% - so a narrowng of 12%/13% over just 3 months or so." You seem to be selecting the highest leads from the polls in question rather than looking at the average. There were indeed 2 polls with 19 and 20% Con leads in Jan & Feb1979, but the average of a very mixed set of 5 was a Con lead of 9-10%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election Agree, another issue is the greater frequency and accuracy of polls, which over 16 months have shown big Labour leads Also some pollsters reverting don't knows back to the 2019 vote, which tends to favour the tories. But the circumstances of 2019 (Brexit,Johnson and Corbyn) are either non existent or have less salience now, so if anything some polls may exaggerate the tory vote
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Dec 22, 2023 21:49:11 GMT
|
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,688
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Dec 22, 2023 21:56:37 GMT
graham "Another example. Polls in January/February 1979 gave the Tories leads of 19%/20%. On May 3rd that year they won the election by 7% - so a narrowng of 12%/13% over just 3 months or so." You seem to be selecting the highest leads from the polls in question rather than looking at the average. There were indeed 2 polls with 19 and 20% Con leads in Jan & Feb1979, but the average of a very mixed set of 5 was a Con lead of 9-10%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election James E
Not being deliberately selective. It is based on the - normally good - memory of a very young and depressed Labour PPC at the time. By mid- January 1979 my hopes from 1978 were fast 'going up in smoke' . The bleaker poll figures from mid- Jan clearly registered, and it partly explains why I still hold Callaghan with such disdain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2023 22:19:11 GMT
No it didn't.....
...
And from the Daily Mail ...
We stated in an article on 26 September that Christmas has been renamed in various places Winterval.
Winterval was the collective name for a season of public events, both religious and secular, which took place in Birmingham in 1997 and 1998.
We are happy to make clear that Winterval did not rename or replace Christmas.
Well apparently it's still going in 2023 in Ireland of all places: www.winterval.ie/I quote: "Visit Santa at Winterval in Santa’s Gingerbread House". Funny, I always thought Santa was associated with Christmas, but now it's Winterval apparently. You said " Birmingham tried to replace Christmas with 'Winterval' a few years ago "
No amount of waffle and deflection from you will alter the simple fact that this is not true.
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 22, 2023 22:20:49 GMT
So it seems no significant reform of the Lords from Labour which is not a surprise. It also kills the Brown Report stone dead so far as protecting and embedding devolution in the UK constitution is concerned which just leaves piecemeal devolution within England in line with current Government policy. x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1737956248421621925?s=20One journalist quoting speculation by another journalist, i.e. meaningless. If we believed journalistic hype Hunt would have abolished IHT in the last budget. I have no doubt that during an election campaign Labour will be forced to clarify how devolution will be safeguarded via the HoL and how convincing the answer is or isn't can be judged then. By definition it cannot be safegusrded in the UK constitution unless Westminster sovereignty is ended.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,247
|
Post by steve on Dec 22, 2023 22:23:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 22, 2023 22:41:44 GMT
The Church of Scotland, which is the Established Church in that nation of the UK, doesn't have bishops, so does not have this problem. A common misconception. The Kirk was permitted by the 1921 Act to call itself the "National Church", but its complete freedom from interference by the state in its affairs allowed the reunion with the Free Kirk. Unlike England (or the practice in Scandinavian states where their "Established" churches are even more thoroughly state churches than in England), no Scots church has ever accepted such a relationship with the state. Hence, there was never a need to disestablish the Scots Kirk, as was the case in Ireland in 1869, or Wales in 1914.
The Church of Scotland doesn't have bishops and has not had them since long before 1921. From Wikipedia: Episcopacy was reintroduced to Scotland after the Restoration, the cause of considerable discontent, especially in the south-west of the country, where the Presbyterian tradition was strongest. The modern situation largely dates from 1690, when after the Glorious Revolution the majority of Scottish bishops were non-jurors, that is, they believed they could not swear allegiance to William II (of Scotland, William III of England) and Mary II while James VII lived. To reduce their influence the Scots Parliament guaranteed Presbyterian governance of the church by law, excluding what became the Scottish Episcopal Church. Most of the remaining Covenanters, disagreeing with the Restoration Settlement on various political and theological grounds, most notably because the Settlement did not acknowledge the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, also did not join the Church of Scotland, instead forming the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1690. In 1690 the Church of Scotland did have a relationship with the Scottish Parliament at a time before the Act of Union.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,778
|
Post by Danny on Dec 22, 2023 22:42:30 GMT
The UN resolution seems very weak to the extent that it probably has little point. Why does the US continue to be so openly complicit with the war crimes of Netanyahu's Neo Fascist government? Netanyahu's Einzatsgruppen are effectively being encouraged to carry on with their slaughter . Because the point of any war is to capture enemy territory and resources and eliminate all opposition. This usually involves killing your enemy and general destruction. If you believe in war, then you are committing to the above. Obviously, the US does believe in war, and has engaged in several in recent years. So they have no principled objection to war or killing locals. The only issue really is whether the benefit is greater than the cost. In this case, the cost for the US is pretty small. The gain is usually reckoned in terms of having an ally in the general region with significant military power. Plus there may be voting considerations. I dont really see what Israel has to lose here, some of its own soldiers will be killed, but they clearly reckon the cost is acceptable, and anyway its not as if they would be safe maintaining the status quo. They will come out of this with a larger effective state of Israel. Comparing the Ukraine and israeli wars, I'd suggest its more important to the US to give Russia a bloody nose whereas I doubt they care one way or another about Gaza but do favour Israel. The cost of the Israeli war is not likely to be much to the US, whereas the Ukrainian war is costing a fortune with no end in sight. Plus they regard it as a European issue where europe is not paying its way. Its probably a no brainer for the US to be on the Israeli side so long as they dont kill too many. Death rate only about 1% so far, perhaps double that from covid. Not a problem when happening in a third party country.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 22, 2023 22:52:28 GMT
If not a Tory, then either a Kipper or a Plaid supporter, the only other two parties for whom a majority of their supporters voted for Brexit. Geez I had no idea a majority of Plaid supporters voted for Brexit. I just don't understand the rationale behind that decision at all. Does anyone else have a clue? I was pretty surprised too. But in a poll of 12.5k people then Plaid voters would be expected to number about 60-120 people, depending how the variance between Westminster and Senedd support is factored. Either way such a small number that it'd be prone to sampling skews - so maybe they had too many of the people who vote Plaid in the valleys as an alternative to Labour, and not enough of those who vote Plaid in traditionally Tory/Liberal areas to the west?
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2023 0:06:02 GMT
Despising your fellow citizens seems common amongst lefties. We can't all be as tolerant and loving of all our fellow citizens as you... More's the pity.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2023 0:07:03 GMT
No they did not ! It's ignorance like this that send people to vote UKIP and Reform. I can't believe still swallow lies like this. EDIT B- Lakeland lass said it better than I can. Thank you. So read my reply to her.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2023 0:19:42 GMT
mercian Santa Claus is said to live at the North Pole with his wife, where he spends the year making toys with the help of his elves. There he receives letters from children asking for Christmas gifts. On Christmas Eve he loads his sleigh with toys and flies around the world, drawn by eight reindeer, stopping at each child’s house, irrespective of rrligion; he slides down the chimney and leaves the gifts, refreshing himself with the milk and cookies left for him by the household’s children. This harmless fantasy doesn't seem to relate in any significant way to the Christian fantasy about a woman getting knocked up by an angel and stealing a donkey's feeding trough as a crib, other than being a handy date for gift producers to make more sales. Don't get me wrong I love all the Christmas gifts, decorations and other stuff but frankly as an individual from a Jewish and Muslim background married to a non practicing Roman Catholic it wouldn't really make any difference what it was called. As usual you're tilting at windmills. I never even mentioned Santa Claus. Like Lakeland Lass and barbara you seem very quick to take offence at a little gentle teasing of 'wokeness'. I'll have to go back to putting a little smiley face after my quips.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2023 0:24:00 GMT
Well apparently it's still going in 2023 in Ireland of all places: www.winterval.ie/I quote: "Visit Santa at Winterval in Santa’s Gingerbread House". Funny, I always thought Santa was associated with Christmas, but now it's Winterval apparently. It's just the name of the event or did you not notice 'Ireland's Christmas festival' immediately underneath it? Of course you did didn't you? By the way I understand Waterford this year (incidentally the city my mother in law hails from) is European city of Christmas so I don't think they've much to gain from dissing Christmas as a concept.. 'At Winterval' refers to (as you are no doubt disingenuously aware) the festival event, not a time of year as in 'at Christmas time' Either you're a bit dim or your post is attempting to deliberately mislead. See my reply to others, but why do they have to invent a new name? Why not just say, as you did, 'at Christmas time'? The name of the website and the name at the top is Winterval, thus subordinating Christmas.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 23, 2023 0:38:34 GMT
The Church of Scotland doesn't have bishops and has not had them since long before 1921. From Wikipedia: Episcopacy was reintroduced to Scotland after the Restoration, the cause of considerable discontent, especially in the south-west of the country, where the Presbyterian tradition was strongest. The modern situation largely dates from 1690, when after the Glorious Revolution the majority of Scottish bishops were non-jurors, that is, they believed they could not swear allegiance to William II (of Scotland, William III of England) and Mary II while James VII lived. To reduce their influence the Scots Parliament guaranteed Presbyterian governance of the church by law, excluding what became the Scottish Episcopal Church. Most of the remaining Covenanters, disagreeing with the Restoration Settlement on various political and theological grounds, most notably because the Settlement did not acknowledge the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, also did not join the Church of Scotland, instead forming the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 1690. In 1690 the Church of Scotland did have a relationship with the Scottish Parliament at a time before the Act of Union. I would suggest that it is folly on your part to try to argue the historical constitutional positions of the Scots Kirk with regard to the state, when you don't even understand the significance of what you choose to highlight in a Wiki article. Whether a Kirk has bishops or not is wholly irrelevant to the character of the relationship between Kirk and State.
Any article, purporting to portray Scots history, that uses the term "Glorious Revolution" to describe the Scots Parliament's decision to invite William to become King of Scotland is unlikely to have accurate commentary on the process of political turmoil in the 17th century.
Like "Established Church", it is best to reserve "Glorious Revolution" to its proper English context, rather than inaccurately impose them elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Dec 23, 2023 0:39:04 GMT
Well apparently it's still going in 2023 in Ireland of all places: www.winterval.ie/I quote: "Visit Santa at Winterval in Santa’s Gingerbread House". Funny, I always thought Santa was associated with Christmas, but now it's Winterval apparently. You said " Birmingham tried to replace Christmas with 'Winterval' a few years ago "
No amount of waffle and deflection from you will alter the simple fact that this is not true.
Ok, see my replies to others, but if I said "Birmingham tried to subordinate Christmas to Winterval" would that suffice? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval"the name "Winterval" was a portmanteau of winter and festival, coined by the Council's Head of Events, Mike Chubb.[4] In October 2008 he explained:[4] Quite simply, as head of events at that time, we needed a vehicle which could cover the marketing of a whole season of events... Diwali (the Festival of Lights), Christmas Lights switch-on, BBC Children in Need, Aston Hall by Candlelight, Chinese New Year, New Year's Eve, etc. Also, a season that included theatre shows, an open-air ice-rink, the Frankfurt Open-air Christmas Market and the Christmas seasonal retail offer. Christmas—called Christmas!—and its celebration lay at the heart of Winterval."
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,082
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 23, 2023 1:01:56 GMT
You said " Birmingham tried to replace Christmas with 'Winterval' a few years ago "
No amount of waffle and deflection from you will alter the simple fact that this is not true.
Ok, see my replies to others, but if I said "Birmingham tried to subordinate Christmas to Winterval" would that suffice? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval"the name "Winterval" was a portmanteau of winter and festival, coined by the Council's Head of Events, Mike Chubb.[4] In October 2008 he explained:[4] Quite simply, as head of events at that time, we needed a vehicle which could cover the marketing of a whole season of events... Diwali (the Festival of Lights), Christmas Lights switch-on, BBC Children in Need, Aston Hall by Candlelight, Chinese New Year, New Year's Eve, etc. Also, a season that included theatre shows, an open-air ice-rink, the Frankfurt Open-air Christmas Market and the Christmas seasonal retail offer. Christmas—called Christmas!—and its celebration lay at the heart of Winterval." No. It would seem that you feel culturally threatened that your sole post solstice festival isn't the only one being celebrated, and that recognising others is "subordinating" you.
There are excellent reasons, other than cultural inclusion, for celebrating anything you can over the depressing winter months - and the economic interests of tourism are a massive one.
Scotland has had a Winter Festival for many years. Wiki describes it as "an annual, nationwide festival that takes place across the winter months of November, December and January. Three particular events are highlighted: Saint Andrew's Day, Hogmanay and Burns night."
These events are additional to to the consumerist festival of Xmas, and don't replace it, they surround it. Of course, while they cover Nov-Jan, when there are specific Scottish festivals, we don't have a full Winter Festival which would also cover Feb-Apr and Aug-Oct.
|
|
|
Post by eor on Dec 23, 2023 2:04:33 GMT
On the US polling in general... Trump is still prohibitively dominant in the Republican primary polling. There's one poll that shows Haley only 15pts behind him in New Hampshire, but even that is solely at the expense of Ramaswamy and Christie, Trump's support remains solid. And outside of NH, no-one is making any impact at all, tho Haley is now tussling with DeSantis for "best of the rest" nationally, albeit with both 50 points behind Trump with only a month until the first voting. www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/2024_republican_presidential_nomination-7548.htmlOn the national picture, it's still basically tied between Trump and Biden. And historical comparisons are next to useless now - Biden's approval numbers are utterly dreadful by historical comparisons, but so are Trump's. And normally the incumbent President would have a big advantage over their main challenger in terms of national recognition at this stage but that's obviously not padding Biden's numbers here given who Trump is. The only elections we can sensibly compare to are 2016 and 2020 but even then... Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton, and criminally-indicted former-President Trump is not the drain-the-swamp guy of 2015-16 either. And Biden is four years older and much more scrutinised by his own side than he was in 2020. www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.htmlGood to see you returning to these pages, and I've always found your posts on US politics and presidential races particularly interesting and erudite. For those of us fascinated by both the country and its politics, we have much to look forward to next year. As for the current Republican state primary polling, Trump looks to be in a strong, maybe unassailable position, but I wonder if things might move quite quickly against him if one of his rival candidates gained some surprise momentum by picking up a state against the head. Is there scope for a Bill Clinton outsider run a la 1992? I'm not saying there is a Republican candidate of Clinton's status in the field, but primary elections are notoriously volatile and Trump is particularly vulnerable to game changing events erupting from the legal jungle in which he is enmeshed. I thought the poll Steve shared yesterday was interesting about the flakiness of Trumps's support amongst what I would call traditional centre right Republican voters. Primary elections bring out the hard core supporters whereas presidential elections are decided by how the centrist and moderate majority breaks Maybe the current Biden v Trump binary polls, this far out from the election, aren't quite yet revealing the nuances that, when push comes to shove, tend to show their decisive face. I'm intrigued too by the fact that the peak "drain the swamp guy" Trump couldn't even beat Clinton in the popular vote in the 2016 election! Thanks for the kind words crossbat11 - likewise I always look forward to your take on this subject. When I read your post earlier I was trying to remember if this election will be our third or our fourth time around this particular block? On the primaries... yes anything is possible. Bill Clinton surged to the nomination through a near vacuum in 1992, and whilst that feels to me to be much more like the kind of scenario we'd have if Trump were forced out of the race, it's worth bearing in mind the reason the field was so weak was because in 1991 it was thought the general election was already unwinnable for the Dems - the big guns opted to wait for 1996 and the end of George Bush Sr's inevitable second term when "time for a change" (and Vice President Dan Quayle) would hand the White House to whoever got the Democratic nomination. And yes, one surprise state result can have far-reaching impacts, change the momentum of a race, and state polling can prove unreliable to put it politely. Also Trump's current dominant margins can have a negative effect in themselves - it's impossible for him to exceed expectations in the early states, whereas it's very easy for one of his challengers to have a surprisingly good night somewhere like New Hampshire. Plus the field is shrinking much faster than in 2016, so opposition to Trump may well consolidate around one candidate very early this time, whereas it remained fragmented until he was all but over the line in 2016. The potential for legal jeopardy to prevent Trump running is still sizeable on a couple of fronts, but whilst I agree the hypothetical polling is interesting it's still subject to the usual basic flaw in that it's asking people what they like to think they would do in a certain situation, when focusing largely on one aspect of it, rather than asking them what they're going to do with all the considerations they have right now. And more specifically the technical definitions used are crucial too - we already know that a significant proportion of voters who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning aren't going to vote for Trump, whether he's convicted or not, cos a whole chunk of them won't vote at all. Whereas if any notable amount of the people who actually voted for him in 2020 were saying they wouldn't do so in 2024, that's rather more serious. I agree that the headline VI figures don't disprove your reasoning at all - Trump's support could indeed be a mile wide and an inch deep as they say over there. I guess all they do tell us currently is that all the legal jeopardy, the charges, the testimonies, the convictions of associates and so on, none of it is really cutting through in VI. Yet. Convictions, and especially a prison sentence for Trump would potentially change that, but in the last 8 years there have been an awful lot of imminent game-changers yet there he still is...
|
|
|
Post by ciderman on Dec 23, 2023 6:22:32 GMT
Good to see you returning to these pages, and I've always found your posts on US politics and presidential races particularly interesting and erudite. For those of us fascinated by both the country and its politics, we have much to look forward to next year. As for the current Republican state primary polling, Trump looks to be in a strong, maybe unassailable position, but I wonder if things might move quite quickly against him if one of his rival candidates gained some surprise momentum by picking up a state against the head. Is there scope for a Bill Clinton outsider run a la 1992? I'm not saying there is a Republican candidate of Clinton's status in the field, but primary elections are notoriously volatile and Trump is particularly vulnerable to game changing events erupting from the legal jungle in which he is enmeshed. I thought the poll Steve shared yesterday was interesting about the flakiness of Trumps's support amongst what I would call traditional centre right Republican voters. Primary elections bring out the hard core supporters whereas presidential elections are decided by how the centrist and moderate majority breaks Maybe the current Biden v Trump binary polls, this far out from the election, aren't quite yet revealing the nuances that, when push comes to shove, tend to show their decisive face. I'm intrigued too by the fact that the peak "drain the swamp guy" Trump couldn't even beat Clinton in the popular vote in the 2016 election! Thanks for the kind words crossbat11 - likewise I always look forward to your take on this subject. When I read your post earlier I was trying to remember if this election will be our third or our fourth time around this particular block? On the primaries... yes anything is possible. Bill Clinton surged to the nomination through a near vacuum in 1992, and whilst that feels to me to be much more like the kind of scenario we'd have if Trump were forced out of the race, it's worth bearing in mind the reason the field was so weak was because in 1991 it was thought the general election was already unwinnable for the Dems - the big guns opted to wait for 1996 and the end of George Bush Sr's inevitable second term when "time for a change" (and Vice President Dan Quayle) would hand the White House to whoever got the Democratic nomination. And yes, one surprise state result can have far-reaching impacts, change the momentum of a race, and state polling can prove unreliable to put it politely. Also Trump's current dominant margins can have a negative effect in themselves - it's impossible for him to exceed expectations in the early states, whereas it's very easy for one of his challengers to have a surprisingly good night somewhere like New Hampshire. Plus the field is shrinking much faster than in 2016, so opposition to Trump may well consolidate around one candidate very early this time, whereas it remained fragmented until he was all but over the line in 2016. The potential for legal jeopardy to prevent Trump running is still sizeable on a couple of fronts, but whilst I agree the hypothetical polling is interesting it's still subject to the usual basic flaw in that it's asking people what they like to think they would do in a certain situation, when focusing largely on one aspect of it, rather than asking them what they're going to do with all the considerations they have right now. And more specifically the technical definitions used are crucial too - we already know that a significant proportion of voters who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning aren't going to vote for Trump, whether he's convicted or not, cos a whole chunk of them won't vote at all. Whereas if any notable amount of the people who actually voted for him in 2020 were saying they wouldn't do so in 2024, that's rather more serious. I agree that the headline VI figures don't disprove your reasoning at all - Trump's support could indeed be a mile wide and an inch deep as they say over there. I guess all they do tell us currently is that all the legal jeopardy, the charges, the testimonies, the convictions of associates and so on, none of it is really cutting through in VI. Yet. Convictions, and especially a prison sentence for Trump would potentially change that, but in the last 8 years there have been an awful lot of imminent game-changers yet there he still is...
|
|
|
Post by ciderman on Dec 23, 2023 6:22:58 GMT
Good to see you returning to these pages, and I've always found your posts on US politics and presidential races particularly interesting and erudite. For those of us fascinated by both the country and its politics, we have much to look forward to next year. As for the current Republican state primary polling, Trump looks to be in a strong, maybe unassailable position, but I wonder if things might move quite quickly against him if one of his rival candidates gained some surprise momentum by picking up a state against the head. Is there scope for a Bill Clinton outsider run a la 1992? I'm not saying there is a Republican candidate of Clinton's status in the field, but primary elections are notoriously volatile and Trump is particularly vulnerable to game changing events erupting from the legal jungle in which he is enmeshed. I thought the poll Steve shared yesterday was interesting about the flakiness of Trumps's support amongst what I would call traditional centre right Republican voters. Primary elections bring out the hard core supporters whereas presidential elections are decided by how the centrist and moderate majority breaks Maybe the current Biden v Trump binary polls, this far out from the election, aren't quite yet revealing the nuances that, when push comes to shove, tend to show their decisive face. I'm intrigued too by the fact that the peak "drain the swamp guy" Trump couldn't even beat Clinton in the popular vote in the 2016 election! Thanks for the kind words crossbat11 - likewise I always look forward to your take on this subject. When I read your post earlier I was trying to remember if this election will be our third or our fourth time around this particular block? On the primaries... yes anything is possible. Bill Clinton surged to the nomination through a near vacuum in 1992, and whilst that feels to me to be much more like the kind of scenario we'd have if Trump were forced out of the race, it's worth bearing in mind the reason the field was so weak was because in 1991 it was thought the general election was already unwinnable for the Dems - the big guns opted to wait for 1996 and the end of George Bush Sr's inevitable second term when "time for a change" (and Vice President Dan Quayle) would hand the White House to whoever got the Democratic nomination. And yes, one surprise state result can have far-reaching impacts, change the momentum of a race, and state polling can prove unreliable to put it politely. Also Trump's current dominant margins can have a negative effect in themselves - it's impossible for him to exceed expectations in the early states, whereas it's very easy for one of his challengers to have a surprisingly good night somewhere like New Hampshire. Plus the field is shrinking much faster than in 2016, so opposition to Trump may well consolidate around one candidate very early this time, whereas it remained fragmented until he was all but over the line in 2016. The potential for legal jeopardy to prevent Trump running is still sizeable on a couple of fronts, but whilst I agree the hypothetical polling is interesting it's still subject to the usual basic flaw in that it's asking people what they like to think they would do in a certain situation, when focusing largely on one aspect of it, rather than asking them what they're going to do with all the considerations they have right now. And more specifically the technical definitions used are crucial too - we already know that a significant proportion of voters who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning aren't going to vote for Trump, whether he's convicted or not, cos a whole chunk of them won't vote at all. Whereas if any notable amount of the people who actually voted for him in 2020 were saying they wouldn't do so in 2024, that's rather more serious. I agree that the headline VI figures don't disprove your reasoning at all - Trump's support could indeed be a mile wide and an inch deep as they say over there. I guess all they do tell us currently is that all the legal jeopardy, the charges, the testimonies, the convictions of associates and so on, none of it is really cutting through in VI. Yet. Convictions, and especially a prison sentence for Trump would potentially change that, but in the last 8 years there have been an awful lot of imminent game-changers yet there he still is...
|
|
|
Post by ciderman on Dec 23, 2023 6:31:09 GMT
Good to see you returning to these pages, and I've always found your posts on US politics and presidential races particularly interesting and erudite. For those of us fascinated by both the country and its politics, we have much to look forward to next year. As for the current Republican state primary polling, Trump looks to be in a strong, maybe unassailable position, but I wonder if things might move quite quickly against him if one of his rival candidates gained some surprise momentum by picking up a state against the head. Is there scope for a Bill Clinton outsider run a la 1992? I'm not saying there is a Republican candidate of Clinton's status in the field, but primary elections are notoriously volatile and Trump is particularly vulnerable to game changing events erupting from the legal jungle in which he is enmeshed. I thought the poll Steve shared yesterday was interesting about the flakiness of Trumps's support amongst what I would call traditional centre right Republican voters. Primary elections bring out the hard core supporters whereas presidential elections are decided by how the centrist and moderate majority breaks Maybe the current Biden v Trump binary polls, this far out from the election, aren't quite yet revealing the nuances that, when push comes to shove, tend to show their decisive face. I'm intrigued too by the fact that the peak "drain the swamp guy" Trump couldn't even beat Clinton in the popular vote in the 2016 election! Thanks for the kind words crossbat11 - likewise I always look forward to your take on this subject. When I read your post earlier I was trying to remember if this election will be our third or our fourth time around this particular block? On the primaries... yes anything is possible. Bill Clinton surged to the nomination through a near vacuum in 1992, and whilst that feels to me to be much more like the kind of scenario we'd have if Trump were forced out of the race, it's worth bearing in mind the reason the field was so weak was because in 1991 it was thought the general election was already unwinnable for the Dems - the big guns opted to wait for 1996 and the end of George Bush Sr's inevitable second term when "time for a change" (and Vice President Dan Quayle) would hand the White House to whoever got the Democratic nomination. And yes, one surprise state result can have far-reaching impacts, change the momentum of a race, and state polling can prove unreliable to put it politely. Also Trump's current dominant margins can have a negative effect in themselves - it's impossible for him to exceed expectations in the early states, whereas it's very easy for one of his challengers to have a surprisingly good night somewhere like New Hampshire. Plus the field is shrinking much faster than in 2016, so opposition to Trump may well consolidate around one candidate very early this time, whereas it remained fragmented until he was all but over the line in 2016. The potential for legal jeopardy to prevent Trump running is still sizeable on a couple of fronts, but whilst I agree the hypothetical polling is interesting it's still subject to the usual basic flaw in that it's asking people what they like to think they would do in a certain situation, when focusing largely on one aspect of it, rather than asking them what they're going to do with all the considerations they have right now. And more specifically the technical definitions used are crucial too - we already know that a significant proportion of voters who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning aren't going to vote for Trump, whether he's convicted or not, cos a whole chunk of them won't vote at all. Whereas if any notable amount of the people who actually voted for him in 2020 were saying they wouldn't do so in 2024, that's rather more serious. I agree that the headline VI figures don't disprove your reasoning at all - Trump's support could indeed be a mile wide and an inch deep as they say over there. I guess all they do tell us currently is that all the legal jeopardy, the charges, the testimonies, the convictions of associates and so on, none of it is really cutting through in VI. Yet. Convictions, and especially a prison sentence for Trump would potentially change that, but in the last 8 years there have been an awful lot of imminent game-changers yet there he still is... Re the 1992 result, it's often forgotten that the entry of renegade candidate Ros Perot as an Independent candidate basically did for George Bush Sent. He drained the Republican vote in a similar way to the way Reform is doing to the Tories here. There is no way that Bill Clinton would have won without Perot's 'help'
|
|