ml1dch

Are there any particular policies that those young people are desperate for that Starmer has suggested they won't get, or anything they are against that Starmer is in favour of? What was Corbyn-Labour offering them that Starmer-Labour is not?

Following @HanoiVillan's question about their 2018 performance, if could just supplement that with their 2012 performance as well. I mean, you could have just saved the work by telling us which polls you were cherry-picking and we could check ourselves, but...

This is pretty important. Polls just reset each time to correct what they missed the previous time. It's hardly ever asked why they were wrong the previous time. In 2012, Romney was polled as likely to win two or three of the rust belt states. Turned out a load of people they thought would vote for him didn't, Obama overperformed his polls and his -1 turned into +4 when the results happened. So the polls in 2016 (wrongly) assumed that particular demographic in that particular region wouldn't bother again. But they did, and the polls were wrong. They were no more wrong than they were in 2012, but because it didn't impact the overall predicted winner you didn't get smug pundits crowing over polls being terrible and pointless. This year they'll get something else wrong, and it won't be the same thing that gave the 2016 result. But it is pretty difficult to see what that something else is that means Trump (legitimately) wins.

Apologies if this has been covered at length before and I just missed it, but: ...?

Betting odds are principally a reflection of where money has been placed. Last time it was expected that Clinton would win, lots of money had been placed on that outcome and the odds reflected that. This time (probably strongly as a consequence of 2016) there is a much more even split on where the money has gone. So the polls heavily favour Biden, but as the money has been split more evenly it's basically 1/2 Biden, 2/1 Trump. Trumps chances last time were basically rolling a one or a two off one die. His chances this time are rolling eleven off two dice. Neither are impossible, neither are likely. The 2016 result is more likely than that 2020 win.

That bodes well:

The whole of Texas is now above their total 2016 figure now.

Harsh. It's likely going to be boom time for the "shell companies recently registered by Tory SpAds in need of initial seed capital" industry.

Definitely not to the first. Probably not to the second.

Hawaii becomes the first state to overtake their 2016 total vote already. Obviously any number of people could vote in Hawaii and it'll be blue, but hey. Yay for turnout.

AI cameras clearly aren't quite perfect yet.

Heh.

A definitive answer would be virtually impossible in that time frame. However an indicative one is still pretty likely - the likes of Florida, Arizona and North Carolina are all pretty likely to have an indicative result and be called one way or the other within 24 hours. And if they are going Trump then it's probably likely that he'll win the whole thing. If they go Biden, then there will be no grounds for stopping anything, and no reason for Trump to want to as they'll be his only (very slim in those circumstances) chance of winning.

China originally, they make and export the most. Then Netherlands, then Japan.

The original claim was.

Indeed. This is the sort of granular level stuff which I think is most interesting. I think that for any individual piece of data to be useful, it needs to be placed in the context of what happened in 2016 and arguably even 2012 as well. So as @HanoiVillan said earlier in the thread - that 125,000 extra Democrat registered voters could simply be 125,000 that voted on the day in 2016 and aren't this year because they have already voted. It's definitely a possibility, and probably the only thing that prevents a Biden victory. But right now the data says that many more people are voting than last time, and comparatively few of them are going red/orange.

He's not really supposed to. He's supposed to a comfy, non-threatening pair of political slippers that appeals to enough elderly Republicans who just want things to go back to being a bit less dickish.

"Superforecasters"

To avoid too many Twitter quotes:

"Right, so we've turned everyone in the country who isn't a sociopath against us with our let's-starve-children-at-Christmas policy, what can we do next?" "Try and make it more expensive to not kill yourself and those around you?" (The Times)

Imagine a year ago, this being a couple of fairly normal paragraphs in a newspaper article which doesn't really elicit more than a shrug of the shoulders.

At least Ben Bradley seems to be having a worse evening than Villa fans are.