General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm assuming that polling companies have modified their methods based on what transpired in 2017. I can't imagine that all methods have remained the same; it wouldn't make sense.

The methodology changes/tweaks all the time, but there's an element of chasing the tail about it. e.g., they underestimated the Tory vote in 2015 so they changed the weightings in 2017 to reflect that. But the weightings they assigned to young voters in particular were marginally too low, so they ended up underestimating the Labour vote.
That's just high-profile General Elections, they'll also have had local elections & Euro elections to test their methodology.

There's no particular reason to think that they are all wrong, it's perfectly clear that the Conservatives have had a lead of around 9-12 points for the last month and still do as of the most recent polls.

McGiver

schmittel wrote:

Aggressive targeted marketing has influenced every campaign in history. And all sides engage in it

This is not the case.
CA brought it to the entirely different level.
And there's new technology at play plus Facebook has much larger market share. This wasn't the case in say before 2010.
The only thing Putin et all need to do is to sway say 4-5% of the population. You need very specific targeting, tech and operations to effectively do that.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought the 'Losers Consent' would be the winner adjusting the policy to accept some of the points proposed by the losing side so as to gain their support for the final policy.

In other words, it is not the losers that have to change their view, but the winners have to modify their approach so as to win wider acceptance when the voting margin is so small.

No wonder there is such division.

US elections almost always go down to the wire, with 51% - 49% etc., are you suggesting that we should re-run the 2016 US presidential election given the gravity of the difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency?

Politics is division by definition. If everyone agreed, politics wouldn't exist.

If Remain won by 52% to 48%, would you argue that "we need to reach out to Leave voters and sort of Leave the EU in some way to keep them on board"?

Not a chance.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

US elections almost always go down to the wire, with 51% - 49% etc., are you suggesting that we should re-run the 2016 US presidential election given the gravity of the difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency?

Politics is division by definition. If everyone agreed, politics wouldn't exist.

If Remain won by 52% to 48%, would you argue that "we need to reach out to Leave voters and sort of Leave the EU in some way to keep them on board"?

Not a chance.

If remain had won by 52%, do you think ERG and UKIP would have gone, "Fair enough, we accept that, time to move on"?

Because I believe they wouldn't. Farage and JRM are on record pre vote saying a second referendum was a good idea.

I believe the remainers would recognise a problem with the EU and have taken it back to Brussels. I believe there would have been a good discussion had in the EU Parliament as to the future of the EU, and what needs to be done to bring those 48% people that want to leave the EU back into the fold.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

Politics is division by definition. If everyone agreed, politics wouldn't exist.

No, it's not. Politics is about compromise.

Only in tribal, undemocratic voting systems like, you know the US and the UK, and to large extent in France, it is about division.
All due to the FPTP and its variants

hometruths

Sam Russell wrote: »

Clinton lost by, was it, 56,000 votes spread over three states. She won the popular vote hugely. Targeted adverts were enough to have had a major effect in those states. Add voter exclusion which was rampant, and polling stations closing while voters queued to vote. Add in all the lies told by Trump that were doubled down on by the media (well Fox News), and you think it was a fair vote.

And you predicted the outcome six months ahead of the vote!

Really?

Yes I felt she would lose that election six months ahead of the vote. In fact the only time during the entire thing that I thought she might win was in the immediate aftermath of the pussy grabbing tape.

This is a candidate that had a shocking sense of entitlement to the job, first displayed in 2008 when the voters dared to support a rival in the Dem primaries, who in 2016 subsequently relied on the party to tilt the primaries in her favour when faced with the unexpected success of a rival.

I agree that 56,000 votes is a narrow margin to lose by, and I think a stronger candidate, a less entitled candidate, one that had achieved the Dem nomination fairly, would have swung that narrow margin and far beyond.

It may be true that social media ads made the difference of 56,000 but the whole point I have been making on here is it should never have been a 56,000 knife edge. That was the candidate/party's fault.

The refusal to recognise that and blame social media, fake news, the Russians and anyone but Clinton is ridiculous.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

If remain had won by 52%, do you think ERG and UKIP would have gone, "Fair enough, we accept that, time to move on"?

Because I believe they wouldn't. Farage and JRM are on record pre vote saying a second referendum was a good idea.

I believe the remainers would recognise a problem with the EU and have taken it back to Brussels. I believe there would have been a good discussion had in the EU Parliament as to the future of the EU, and what needs to be done to bring those 48% people that want to leave the EU back into the fold.

Or the right wing press. They would have been as Europhobic as ever and still attacking the EU.

You wouldn't have heard the phrases "will of the people" or "democratic decision" even once had Remain won 52-48.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

Yes I felt she would lose that election six months ahead of the vote. In fact the only time during the entire thing that I thought she might win was in the immediate aftermath of the pussy grabbing tape.

This is a candidate that had a shocking sense of entitlement to the job, first displayed in 2008 when the voters dared to support a rival in the Dem primaries, who in 2016 subsequently relied on the party to tilt the primaries in her favour when faced with the unexpected success of a rival.

I agree that 56,000 votes is a narrow margin to lose by, and I think a stronger candidate, a less entitled candidate, one that had achieved the Dem nomination fairly, would have swung that narrow margin and far beyond.

It may be true that social media ads made the difference of 56,000 but the whole point I have been making on here is it should never have been a 56,000 knife edge. That was the candidate/party's fault.

The refusal to recognise that and blame social media, fake news, the Russians and anyone but Clinton is ridiculous.

The deplorables line really hurt her and the thing is, i dont really thing she still understands why. Read her book afterwards and it basically boiled down to page after page of I'm so great, how on earth did you not elect me?

Saying that, i thought even she still couldnt lose to trump. Over evaluation of the clinton brand was at least one minor compensation.

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

No, it's not. Politics is about compromise.

Only in tribal, undemocratic voting systems like, you know the US and the UK, and to large extent in France, it is about division.
All due to the FPTP and its variants

Also, democracy is supposed to serve the entire population of a country and reflect their wishes and interests.

One half inflicting its will on the other half is in a "suck it up, losers" manner is dictatorship / potential civil war type material.

Letwin_Larry

Strazdas wrote: »

A lot of people in Ireland don't like Corbyn or are indifferent to him. I have had many real life conversations with people who describe him as 'useless', 'a disaster' etc.

i would put myself into the latter category
it's not that i dislike Corbyn. i actually think he is an ok guy and a heck of a lot more honest than Johnson.
however i do find him totally frustrating. why? because he is wasteful and ineffective.

the only analogy i can use is he is like having a useless striker who misses chance after golden chance, then the opposition hoofs the ball into your box and scores the winner. and you're left with that sick feeling that we should have won that one. it's worse than being outplayed imo.

Lab should be 3-0 up, but because they seem incapable of tapping the ball into an empty net they aren't.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

If Remain won by 52% to 48%, would you argue that "we need to reach out to Leave voters and sort of Leave the EU in some way to keep them on board"?

Most likely Cameron would have said that it was a close run thing and he's taking on board the problems that people have with the EU and will set about trying to change them. Whether he could in fact change them or not is a different story, but certainly he would have reached out to the Brexiteers and would've tried to get them back on side.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most likely Cameron would have said that it was a close run thing and he's taking on board the problems that people have with the EU and will set about trying to change them. Whether he could in fact change them or not is a different story, but certainly he would have reached out to the Brexiteers and would've tried to get them back on side.

I guess that's in the past now. Nothing we can do about it.

What matters now is that Leave voters - finally - have the chance to Get Brexit Done.

We need that majority in 4 days time. If Johnson fails to secure a majority, he's toast.

The prospect of a Corbyn-Sturgeon coalition is terrifying.

McGiver

Strazdas wrote:

Also, democracy is supposed to serve the entire population of a country and reflect their wishes and interests.

They confuse democracy with ochlocracy in the UK. Lack of education and culture of majoritarianism and tribalism are the causes of this.

The only fix is switching to a PR system, otherwise it will only get worse like it did in the US plus with Trumpism (no-fact politics), and social media manipulation, we're looking at potential quasi - authoritarian government in the UK very soon. Think Orbán, PiS etc. Tories have been always authoritarian at core (Thatcher is the prime example) and om sure they won't miss the opportunity to tighten the grip. All the indications are there.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Also, democracy is supposed to serve the entire population of a country and reflect their wishes and interests.

One half inflicting its will on the other half is in a "suck it up, losers" manner is dictatorship / potential civil war type material.

Here is the problem, if there are two opposing points of view, where there is no middle ground, how do you decide which position is the correct one.


There is no solution that will seem fair to the losing side, if there is, please divulge.

Letwin_Larry

4 days to go and no major earth-shattering revelations that i can see. Boris will be the happier of the 2 leaders as he tucks into his Sunday dinner.

Joe_ Public

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Most likely Cameron would have said that it was a close run thing and he's taking on board the problems that people have with the EU and will set about trying to change them. Whether he could in fact change them or not is a different story, but certainly he would have reached out to the Brexiteers and would've tried to get them back on side.

Would have been hard given he already had tried to negotiate changes before the referendum was called and failed to satisfy the hardliners.

Easy to use hindsight here, but any astute operator surely knows to put some sort of insurance card in place. Even Dom Cummings said during the campaign that a confirmatory referendum might be needed in the event of a leave victory, was a serious error not to provide cover for that imo.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

US elections almost always go down to the wire, with 51% - 49% etc., are you suggesting that we should re-run the 2016 US presidential election given the gravity of the difference between a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency?

Politics is division by definition. If everyone agreed, politics wouldn't exist.

If Remain won by 52% to 48%, would you argue that "we need to reach out to Leave voters and sort of Leave the EU in some way to keep them on board"?

Not a chance.

Well, the US elections have always had doubtful legitimacy.

If Remain won by 52% to 48%, it could not be argued that some voted for 'soft' Remain, while others voted 'Hard' Remain. It is obvious what the Remain side voted for - Remain.

On the other hand, Leave voters were fed lies, and HUGE lies, and everything in between, and the actual Leave campaign broke the rules.

Of course, in a close contest, the winner should always try to reach out to the losers, but that is not a function understood in the UK.

Sam Russell

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The deplorables line really hurt her and the thing is, i dont really thing she still understands why. Read her book afterwards and it basically boiled down to page after page of I'm so great, how on earth did you not elect me?

Saying that, i thought even she still couldnt lose to trump. Over evaluation of the clinton brand was at least one minor compensation.

The final nail was FBI Director Comey announcing reopening the investigation into her. I think at that stage he thought she would win and did not want to be accused of favouring her. However, it was enough to swing those few states against her. He should have announced that he was opening investigations into both candidates.

They should have gone with Biden.

McGiver

Deleted User wrote:

Here is the problem, if there are two opposing points of view, where there is no middle ground, how do you decide which position is the correct one.

That's why civilised countries have processes to achieve some sort of a compromise in the political domain. The UK doesn't have such process.

HM Government with a simple majority of MPs elected by 40% of the popular vote has almost an absolute power, essentially allowing them to create and amend "the constitution" as the Parliament is sovereign - why would you compromise anything if you have absolute executive and legislative power?

The higher chamber is almost toothless in this process and doesn't encourage consensus building either.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the problem, if there are two opposing points of view, where there is no middle ground, how do you decide which position is the correct one.


There is no solution that will seem fair to the losing side, if there is, please divulge.

Compromise! It's the bedrock of all European democracies and how the right, the left and the centrists can peacefully co-exist. Lots of give and take and nobody gets everything they want or even close to it.

The British system is almost unique in Europe in that it can allow one half of the country impose its will on the other half in an almost aggressive and provocative manner. In Ireland and the rest of the EU, multi party coalitions, compromise and consensus are the absolute norm.

If you're talking about a black and white binary issue that is dividing people, even that can be compromised on. Agree to keep dialogue and debate open on the issue to reflect that public opinion might change, keep open the idea of future referendums etc.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

They confuse democracy with ochlocracy in the UK. Lack of education and culture of majoritarianism and tribalism are the causes of this.

People who claim others have a lack of education, usually do so because others don’t agree with their point of view.

It’s bordering on fascism to be honest.

Joe_ Public

Sam Russell wrote: »

The final nail was FBI Director Comey announcing reopening the investigation into her. I think at that stage he thought she would win and did not want to be accused of favouring her. However, it was enough to swing those few states against her. He should have announced that he was opening investigations into both candidates.

They should have gone with Biden.

In my fantasy land Bernie scraped home, showed himself to be a compassionate, popular president and arrived in the uk to tacitly endorse corbyn...

Meanwhile back in real world, i believe biden would have won it but after obama i guess the idea of going with a woman candidate felt like progress. Ironic when you consider what they ended up with.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The deplorables line really hurt her and the thing is, i dont really thing she still understands why. Read her book afterwards and it basically boiled down to page after page of I'm so great, how on earth did you not elect me?

Saying that, i thought even she still couldnt lose to trump. Over evaluation of the clinton brand was at least one minor compensation.

That is the entire point I have been banging on about.

If she did not have that attitude she would have won the election! Trump could have spent €59 million with Cambridge Analytica and he still would have lost.

Or put it another way can anybody imagine Obama losing to Trump? Of course not, it is ridiculous. Why? Because Obama is a strong candidate that you can vote FOR, rather than being faced with choice of two weak candidates and having to decide who to vote against.

Which brings me back on topic to UK Election/Johnson/Corbyn -

It's been touched on here that things might have been different if David Miliband had become leader.

Can you imagine David Miliband in the current situation, 10 points behind Johnson and a shambles of a Tory party.

I think it is highly unlikely, because he seems like a stronger candidate, though we'll never know for sure now!

hometruths

McGiver wrote: »

This is not the case.
CA brought it to the entirely different level.
And there's new technology at play plus Facebook has much larger market share. This wasn't the case in say before 2010.
The only thing Putin et all need to do is to sway say 4-5% of the population. You need very specific targeting, tech and operations to effectively do that.

Do you think Putin et al would have been able to use Facebook to swing the election Trump's away if he'd standing against Obama?

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

That is the entire point I have been banging on about.

If she did not have that attitude she would have won the election! Trump could have spent €59 million with Cambridge Analytica and he still would have lost.

Or put it another way can anybody imagine Obama losing to Trump? Of course not, it is ridiculous. Why? Because Obama is a strong candidate that you can vote FOR, rather than being faced with choice of two weak candidates and having to decide who to vote against.

Which brings me back on topic to UK Election/Johnson/Corbyn -

It's been touched on here that things might have been different if David Miliband had become leader.

Can you imagine David Miliband in the current situation, 10 points behind Johnson and a shambles of a Tory party.

I think it is highly unlikely, because he seems like a stronger candidate, though we'll never know for sure now!

You're right. We'll never know. Whoever you posit as alternative leader, they still have to presumably deal with a divided country and, crucially, a divided party. They simply dont just magic that away by changing the man at the top.

As for the other Miliband, the new labourites will wonder what might have been but when you see him creaming off huge salaries working for charitites in new york, I'd wonder if a lot of labour voters are truly sorry to have dodged that particular bullet.

hometruths

Re Clinton/Trump, one of the reasons I thought she'd lose was that putting myself in the shoes of the US voter I would have voted Trump, an odious individual with absolutely no redeeming features, but still the lesser of two evils.

I felt that way because as I mentioned Clintons reaction to Obama in 08 and her treatment of Sanders in 16 primaries. She felt the job was hers by right.

If I had been a US citizen it would have annoyed me that in the 13 elections since 1968 only 3 had not included a Bush or a Clinton to some degree or other (seeking nomination for Rep/Dem VP/Pres) and one of those years was 2012 in which Clinton was Sec of State waiting for 2016 because she'd been promised the job.

And 2012 marked the end of an unbroken run of 32 years for the Bush/Clinton families. That seems neither fair or likely in a country the size of the US.

There were problems in elections before Facebook too.

Sam Russell

schmittel wrote: »

Re Clinton/Trump, one of the reasons I thought she'd lose was that putting myself in the shoes of the US voter I would have voted Trump, an odious individual with absolutely no redeeming features, but still the lesser of two evils.

I felt that way because as I mentioned Clintons reaction to Obama in 08 and her treatment of Sanders in 16 primaries. She felt the job was hers by right.

If I had been a US citizen it would have annoyed me that in the 13 elections since 1968 only 3 had not included a Bush or a Clinton to some degree or other (seeking nomination for Rep/Dem VP/Pres) and one of those years was 2012 in which Clinton was Sec of State waiting for 2016 because she'd been promised the job.

And 2012 marked the end of an unbroken run of 32 years for the Bush/Clinton families. That seems neither fair or likely in a country the size of the US.

There were problems in elections before Facebook too.

It was only 24 years, unless you count the period when G. H. Bush was VP, in which it was 36 years.

sid waddell

Aegir wrote: »

People who claim others have a lack of education, usually do so because others don’t agree with their point of view.

It’s bordering on fascism to be honest.

Presumably you'll think this is bordering on fascism then:

https://twitter.com/emilyhewertson/status/1202602640787542017

hometruths

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was only 24 years, unless you count the period when G. H. Bush was VP, in which it was 36 years.

Yes I was counting VP which I made 32 years - but even not counting his VP, I am not sure 24 years should be prefaced by 'only'!!

Joe_ Public

sid waddell wrote: »

Presumably you'll think this is bordering on fascism then:

https://twitter.com/emilyhewertson/status/1202602640787542017

Gavin Williamson.....the man who was welcomed back into the cabinet mere weeks after being fired for leaking details of a national council security meeting.

From the party that likes to talk tough on security...