|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 17, 2019 17:52:20 GMT
There are still far, far too many Democratic candidates. About time some of them realised they haven't a prayer. It's now a fairly average number (by historical standards) after being well above average earlier in the year. Of course presidential campaigns have for some time been a decent way of increasing the sales of memoirs and suchlike, so it's not surprising that so many get in on the act. Not at this point in the race. A fairly average number at the start? Yes. But by December, even considering the Sestak/Bullock/Harris dropouts in early December, every other field in the post-reform era was smaller than this one.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 16, 2019 23:26:50 GMT
I mean, it does seem odd to leave the party just as it gets new leadership? Logically speaking either they should have left long ago or they should at least wait to see if the new leadership is any better? Maybe they see no future in Labour after the party's defeat and intend to either retire from politics at the next election or continue independently of a weakened party machine. With non-partisan independence comes some presumably refreshing freedom.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 16, 2019 1:19:22 GMT
Given that “ past public comments “ line I take there is no way back for me either That line is only a pretext. I wouldn't worry unless you also intend to challenge Carlaw in the leadership election - this is clearly an attempt to stop the #ConservativesForCoburn movement before it takes hold of the entire Scottish party.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 16, 2019 1:06:19 GMT
There's no "light bulb moment" to be had here or in the US, though lessons can and should be learnt. A plethora of problems (some obvious - such as Corbyn's rank unpopularity - and others less so) caused Labour's defeat (as is the case for most defeats where a large party trails it main rival by >10%), and only a subset of these apply to other political systems. It's not clear Labour would have won had Corbyn been replaced with Keir Starmer, or if they'd leant into Lexit, etc. Furthermore, it's not always true (even if it usually is) that getting a higher percentage of the overall vote means one has a better chance of actually winning - there are some 'low ceiling, high floor' strategies which might have seen Labour lose by less but also mobilised more voters against it. Indeed, the electoral college in the US is structured such that it's very plausible to imagine a general turnout-boosting Democratic strategy piling up wasted votes in safe Republican and Democratic states (and losing) while winning the popular vote by a greater margin than an alternative (winning) approach.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 14, 2019 14:30:18 GMT
In actual fact, the exit poll slightly overstated the Tory victory in both seat and vote terms (the latter was actually 45-33 rather than 46-32) And it is cold comfort for us but Labour got a dozen more MPs than predicted. Had that been the case with the 2017 version, things might just have turned out differently. (Labour might well have been able to form an at least short-term minority government then) Still within the 3% margin of error, as ~64% of the BBC/ITN exit polls have been. The team should be patting themselves on the back.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 14, 2019 2:31:21 GMT
Tulsi Gabbard, Julian Castro and Cory Booker have failed to qualify for the December debate (along with five other candidates still in the race). If not for the relative dearth of polling around the Thanksgiving period, I reckon Gabbard might have squeaked over the line. A look at how the presidential frontrunners' net favourability ratings have shifted over the past few months (caveat: Buttigieg is still a lot less well-known than the rest of them within the general population):
|
|
|
ICM
Dec 12, 2019 10:23:57 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 12, 2019 10:23:57 GMT
Does anyone know if we're expecting a 'final' ICM poll today? If we have no more, an average of the last 6 prior to close of polls projects a 10.5% lead for the Conservatives, exactly 2 points higher than the one they had (according to pollsters who've since changed their methodology) in 2017.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 6, 2019 18:05:49 GMT
Probably not the case on those VI numbers, ERG rebellion notwithstanding. That's not to say there wouldn't be trouble in the transition period.
|
|
|
ORB
Dec 6, 2019 18:03:57 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 6, 2019 18:03:57 GMT
This firm appears to be shrinking away from VI polling, little by little. In 2017 they handled every survey for the Daily/Sunday Telegraph, but published none independently or for other organisations; since then, the Telegraph have paid for two ORB polls, and done the lion's share of their business with ComRes. Could the industry be set to shrink again?
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 6, 2019 16:11:39 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 6, 2019 16:11:39 GMT
That's a little disappointing - I was hoping that they would issue new figures this weekend and then have a final update before polling day. It has a feeling of being a bit of a non event this time - in fact I have the impression that there hasn't been the same intensity of polling conducted this time around - maybe reflecting that there hasn't been much movement for the main parties over the course of the campaign outside of standard MOE. They are generating other new figures, but these are being offered privately (presumably to parties and other groups.) Polling is an expensive business, and perhaps increasingly so; it's not surprising YouGov have to try to make a killing now and then.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 6, 2019 15:43:31 GMT
I have been watching the interviews on the news with all the candidates over the past couple of weeks and have to say that Buttigieg was easily the most impressive but, as indicated above, I dont see him getting past his black problem. Biden reacted very badly at a town hall meeting yesterday when a member of the public questioned his sons activities in the Ukraine, an issue that will only get more attention should he win the nomination. I thought the firm, unequivocal reaction was almost exactly what was and will be needed in the digital age full of 'viral moments' and breathless hack journalism prone to generating headlines like 'Biden unclear on whether he gave his son job in Ukraine'. The one minor demerit there is the bit where he says 'look, fact/fat' - if he did say the latter (like the video of Johnson's 'people of talent' comment today, it wasn't completely clear), it's not going to play brilliantly with the millions of American voters who might be sensitive about their weight. Four days before Harris dropped out, Bloomberg recruited her campaign's former director of operations (responsible for the letter criticising her handling of staff matters) as his campaign's deputy chief operating officer. In terms of campaign spending, on which he is not limited like the majority of candidates who've rejected super PAC assistance, here's what his campaign managed in its first week: It's worth noting Steyer probably wouldn't have made it into the Democratic debates (which boosted his profile and favourability) without his planned $100m spend and his access to crucial email lists from previous climate change-related and Need To Impeach campaigns. What Bloomberg can do with a wealth over 30 times' greater than Steyer's $1-2bn remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 4, 2019 22:27:52 GMT
Everyone is down in this poll No mention of Plaid, BxP and the Greens, but I fear they're down a bit too. Nationally, I expect it's all static, but it's hard to deny the rise of Ein Gwlad is pushing all other Welsh parties towards lost deposit territory.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 4, 2019 14:33:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 4, 2019 14:33:36 GMT
Good thread from Chris Curtis of YouGov. TLDR: Losses of Labour leavers could cost them the election, but they would probably be doing even worse if they stuck to a pro-Brexit line due to losses among many more Labour remainers. Labour strategy electorally reasonable, but perhaps Labour were just never going to win a Brexit election? Endorsing the position earlier might have helped, particularly with increasing the LD/Green squeeze. Perhaps stressing that it’d be binding and/or saying ‘we will endorse the envisioned deal in the referendum’ might have helped?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 4, 2019 1:42:57 GMT
Imagine going to all the effort and expense of putting together an apparently serious bid for the White House, only to have your campaign derailed by someone whose own campaign strategy largely involves posting increasingly eyebrow-raising 'fitness' videos on instagram. That's giving too much credit to Gabbard, which is exactly what Gabbard wants. Harris' campaign died a death by a thousand cuts, and I'm still not entirely sure why it run out of money before more obviously hopeless bids did. Internal staff infighting hit the headlines plenty of times but her sister and other key top figures were never, to my recollection, replaced or demoted within the campaign. I would guess that played an outsized role in the eventual collapse.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 19:02:37 GMT
Or a disillusioned member of her staff team, repeatedly plagued by leaks and fractures, is playing a nasty trick. On reflection, her recent dip in South Carolina would suggest to me there really is no path for her to the nomination despite her getting around 5% (not extremely far behind previous a few winners of the Democratic nomination) nationally. That was the only one of the early states in which she pollled healthily, and a decline there indicates she's in an unstoppable downward spiral. The prevailing theory seems to be that she had to get out now to avoid getting on the California ballot. A dismal result in CA would have attracted serious challengers to her Senate seat and threatened her reelection. Apparently Tom Steyer is going to go for it, having improved his initially poor favourability rating through healthy debate performances. Averages would suggest she also appears to have dipped to <2.5% in New Hampshire. That wasn't true in the previous month, and is unsustainable for someone who intends to win, as (I think) she did.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 18:33:26 GMT
Or a disillusioned member of her staff team, repeatedly plagued by leaks and fractures, is playing a nasty trick. On reflection, her recent dip in South Carolina would suggest to me there really is no path for her to the nomination despite her getting around 5% (not extremely far behind previous a few winners of the Democratic nomination) nationally. That was the only one of the early states in which she pollled healthily, and a decline there indicates she's in an unstoppable downward spiral.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 3, 2019 17:42:02 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 17:42:02 GMT
Looking more like 2017 with every poll. Identical Labour lead to the last London poll for that election. Probably Richmond Park goes Lib Dem and maybe Barnet, Hendon or Kensington change hands. Nothing really exciting. I'd say that Putney or Chingford are better Labour prospects than Hendon. Barnet is certainly dangerous for the Cons. Hendon could be worthwhile if the strategy is to aim for at least a minority government that could survive without LD support (but with SNP support etc.), or if the London party is confident it can hold almost everything and wants to maximise gains. If your canvassing returns are telling you otherwise, by all means ignore this, but the constituency poll there is just one poll. Though it indicates that Labour would only get 44% if the LDs were squeezed (in contrast to the Conservatives' current VI of 51%), it also indicates the LDs would only get 39% if Labour were squeezed - which suggests that (a)antisemitism concerns are depressing LD support, (b)these London polls are wrong, (c)Matthew Offord has grown in popularity for heavily localised reasons, (d)Mike Katz was very popular locally and Labour should have selected him again or (e)the poll is off the mark, as individual polls may be. Re: antisemitism concerns depressing LD support since 2017, I could see it happening to a limited extent ("they'll let Corbyn in"), but not to anything quite like what the poll would imply. I expect this seat to stay Conservative, but unless you think one of (a)-(d) applies, you've got a constituency that voted for Remain by 58% rather than Chingford's 51%, and require a swing of 1% rather than 2.6% to win. I'd guess it's marginally easier.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 17:21:51 GMT
YouGov poll of London, for the Mile End Institute (QMUL) and Evening Standard: LAB: 47% (+8) CON: 30% (+1) LIB: 15% (-4) GRN: 4% (-1) BRX: 3% (-3) Changes on their previous poll. Looking more like 2017 with every poll. Identical Labour lead to the last London poll for that election. Probably Richmond Park goes Lib Dem and maybe Barnet, Hendon or Kensington change hands. Nothing really exciting. In London, but outside that Labour aren't quite emulating the momentum of '17. Not that they need to do that - they can afford to be a few more points behind than last time, as long as the rest of the opposition gains some seats from the government.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 3, 2019 12:55:18 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 12:55:18 GMT
To an extent - after all, they still gave UKIP 7% last time. BxP may well do better than the Conservatives here though they surely have no hope now (it could have been a long shot for them at the start of the campaign). I know it's all the rage to tout Starmer these days if you're looking for a future Labour leader outside of the Socialist Campaign Group, but I think Cruddas is one of the few up to the job. I'm not personally in favour of some of his policy ideas, but he sees the same kind of problems that Corbynism aims to address, and highlighted them long before they culminated in the defeat of 2010. I doubt he'll have the appetite to go for the role, but in an explicitly anti-fascist party, he'd have more credentials than most of the majority now classed as moderates. Small point, but to all intents & purposes the Campaign Group doesn't exist any more. On the contrary - rule changes were made after 2017 allowing its members to serve on the front bench (though not, I think, as leader), and a fair chunk of the 2017 intake has joined (and thus arguably re-invigorated) it. In my view, it may well be used to indicate ideological loyalty to the current leadership, though I don't think its role is as big as e.g. Momentum's. For a group that once looked like it might go extinct in Parliament, I think it's actually come a long way forwards from where it was in '15. If someone from the soft left, Blairite, or Brownite factions wins the Labour leadership, I expect its branding to be used a little more openly by rebellious backbenchers.
|
|
|
YouGov
Dec 3, 2019 12:50:25 GMT
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 3, 2019 12:50:25 GMT
Dagenham is one of those seats Labour should have lost last time on paper, but Cruddas runs a tight ship and I'd give him a decent chance of winning even if this poll indicated things were the other way around for most of London Labour. on paper, that's not really true. London-wide polls didn't indicate towards the end that any seat in the capital would swing to the Tories, but D & R did, by several percentage points. There can have been very few, if any, others that did. I take your point, but indicators towards the end did indicate they'd get that sort of swing in Leave areas in London (~11 seats, I think). In the end they proved overly positive for the Conservatives as we now know from results (more Leave London seats swung somewhat to Labour as UKIP collapsed as Labour's principle opponent in some constituencies), but in a seat which voted almost 70% to leave, I'll contend Cruddas' result was still impressive beyond the party's national result.
|
|