Neverending Story 3: The Ongoing Brexit Thread

Here are some of my favorites - just a quick search for "brexit" or "scotland" and you in the search bar.

I feel duty-bound to bring this back up, because no, Trump didn't win more Latinos/Hispanic than Romney or McCain did.

I mean, you've got a lot of wrong in here. Sturgeon's called for a second referendum despite oil prices remaining low. Howard got in a fuss over Gibraltar despite your claim that Gibraltar would not become a problem. UK did vote Leave. Trump didn't win 29% of the Latino vote.

You know what? That's not the bad part. I've been wrong. I thought Hillary would win. I thought Democrats would hold the Senate in 2014. Here's me admitting fault.

On the other hand, you don't ever seem to have been wrong in your life. It takes a lot of stones to guess poorly so often and deny it.

And in some other thread you're claiming that economic concerns, and not racism, motivated most Trump voters. You'll never guess what's about to come next:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-or-income-inequality/?utm_term=.17195f4d7c17

 

So you've spent the past hour trawling through my posts and all you can come up with is a load of issues already addressed in other threads or stuff where, AGAIN, you've misread what I or somebody else wrote.

Time well spent I'd say

 

You can't do it, can you? You can't say you were wrong. That's something only our usual set of pro-GOP trolls and sock puppets do regularly.

 

Well in that case.

 

Stupid question and a reflection upon how little I know about UK politics, but shouldn't this election be a disaster for the Conservative party? As the ruling party during the Brexit vote, the amount of capital that they spent on the Remain vote, and the relative unpopularity of the result of the vote after the fact, shouldn't this be a slam dunk for the parties to the left of the Conservative party? I get that Labour is a trainwreck, but I would think people would be voting against the Conservatives as much as voting for Labour. Or is the multiple party and first past the post system that will be keeping Conservative party in power? Is the expectation that the Remain and Bregret vote is going to be split by the left of center parties and that the Conservatives are going to win seats because of the fractured votes?

 

What is it you fellas say, 'Gentleman, we have a winner'? Something like that.

But the reality is that, generally, most people's view haven't moved that much since the referendum. Having said that I think, if it was repeated, (which is NOT what is happening, of course), the vote might go narrowly for remain.

The best hope now is that we leave but we keep almost all the stuff we have now, i.e. a bit like Norway or whatever. That satisfies he EU and keeps the rubes happy.

 

Problem solved

 

FFS brummie... ALL this because you misread when I posted and have got the hump???

OK! Just going from memory...

Yes? AND?

IIRC I said he'd got 29% and that was based on an article from some polling at some point but I ALSO quoted ANOTHER article myself showing he'd got slightly lower numbers.

But WTF's THAT got to do with anything bearing in mind we're talking about a man that had actively insulted almost ALL hispanic people, especially the Mexicans, something which, AFAIK,, Romney never did.

Again, AND???? She hasn't had a referendum so they haven't left, have they and, in any event, she was NEVER going to get one until May said it was OK so the point's moot.

Newsflash. It still hasn't atm.

So you're saying I, (and the polls were wrong about something? Y'mean, like all the fellas on the yank boards when they said trump had ZERO chance of being president?

Tell ya what, shall we look back and your statements in the year or so running up to the US presidential election.

Yeah... maybe not, eh?!

We've done that one!

Oh, so YOU can be wrong as well.

It's true. I'm pretty amazing. I can't deny it.

Says you, anyway

Er, wrong AGAIN! You're on a roll atm dude.

I've said there are multiple reason why he won INCLUDING racism and also including many other aspects of US politics, some of which have changed UK politics.

We've done that one in the other thread yer twit. You're just repeating shit now

If you want to read all that all my posts and people's replies so you have the full context, knock yerself out.

I'll put my posting history up against yours ANY day but, in the meantime, can we stick to the topic at hand?

 

Yes, how we got here has to be born in mind.

That's why jezza is in charge with my lot, because the argument has been used that, with a left-wing candidate we can't win the GE but then, we didn't win with Miliband and his extreme hard-left policies like 'An NHS with the time to care'. Y'know... I'm sure I remember reading that phrase in Mao's little red book

Agreed.

The only point at issue is how candidates like Soubry do who are determined anti-brexiteers.

He's typical of a lot on the left. I've known LOADS of people like that over the years.

It's not fair to call him useless, though, unless you're assuming he wanted to remain in the EU when that's FAR from certain. Most people I know like him wanted to leave.

I think you mean decimated, don't yer but, yes... the liberals got hammered for the student debt thing. As to whether it was unfair, politics often is but, don't forget, they took a number of labour seats in marginal seats in 2010 purely on the BASIS of the student vote including Charles Clark's seat in Norwich, (north or south... I forget).


Edit: It's Norwich south and he lost by only 300, apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Clarke#Life_after_Parliament

 

Latino expectations (I think that is the name) excludes Latinos that do not use spanish.

So really it depends on how you define Latinos on who was right on how many Latinos were won by Trump.

If Selina Gomez voted for Trump is that a Latino vote?

 

The topic at hand appears to be predicting outcomes in British politics.

Something at which you haven't got an even-decent track record.

Why should any of us care what you have to say?

 

Hey now.. I pretty much nailed the election. I was optimistic that Clinton was going to win, but didn't trust the variability in the state polling and thought there was a good chance that Trump could pull it off.

 

Yes, this is all pretty rich coming from a person who assured us that Hillary was very likely to win.

 

Two things:

1) I fessed up to being wrong. Created an entire thread to discuss it.
2) She won the popular vote by 3 percentage points. She lost the election by 80,000 votes. If I'm going to be wrong, this is the best way to be wrong: the largest lopsided electoral vote-popular split in American political history.

The following table calculates four quantities for each presidential election, denoted by year. EV is the proportion of electoral votes the winner won that year. POP is the popular vote. ADJPOP is the two-party vote difference (aka how much more/less than 50% of the top-two vote getters the winner received). And DIFF is the difference between EV and ADJPOP.

Bolded elections are where the popular vote loser won the electoral vote.

year ev pop adjpop diff
1824 0.32 -1 0.4 -0.08
2000 0.5 -0.05 0.495 0.005
1916 0.52 0.03 0.503 0.017
2004 0.53 0.02 0.502 0.028
1876 0.5 -0.3 0.47 0.03
1976 0.55 0.02 0.502 0.048
1884 0.55 0.01 0.501 0.049
1848 0.56 0.05 0.505 0.055
1968 0.56 0.01 0.501 0.059
1960 0.56 0 0.5 0.06
1948 0.57 0.04 0.504 0.066
1836 0.58 0.14 0.514 0.066
1856 0.59 0.12 0.512 0.078
1880 0.58 0 0.5 0.08
1860 0.59 0.1 0.51 0.08
1888 0.58 -0.08 0.492 0.088
2016 0.57 -0.2 0.48 0.09
1896 0.61 0.04 0.504 0.106
2012 0.62 0.04 0.504 0.116
1892 0.62 0.03 0.503 0.117
1844 0.62 0.01 0.501 0.119
1900 0.65 0.06 0.506 0.144
1908 0.66 0.09 0.509 0.151
1828 0.68 0.12 0.512 0.168
2008 0.68 0.07 0.507 0.173
1992 0.69 0.06 0.506 0.184
1996 0.7 0.09 0.509 0.191
1904 0.71 0.19 0.519 0.191
1924 0.72 0.25 0.525 0.195
1868 0.73 0.05 0.505 0.225
1920 0.76 0.26 0.526 0.234
1832 0.77 0.18 0.518 0.252
1988 0.79 0.08 0.508 0.282
1840 0.8 0.06 0.506 0.294
1872 0.81 0.12 0.512 0.298
1944 0.81 0.08 0.508 0.302
1912 0.82 0.14 0.514 0.306
1952 0.83 0.11 0.511 0.319
1928 0.84 0.17 0.517 0.323
1940 0.85 0.1 0.51 0.34
1956 0.86 0.15 0.515 0.345
1852 0.86 0.07 0.507 0.353
1932 0.89 0.18 0.518 0.372
1964 0.9 0.23 0.523 0.377
1980 0.91 0.1 0.51 0.4
1864 0.91 0.1 0.51 0.4
1972 0.97 0.23 0.523 0.447
1936 0.98 0.24 0.524 0.456
1984 0.98 0.18 0.518 0.462

It's reasonable to expect the winner to outperform in the Electoral College relative to the popular vote. A candidate who wins 57% of the votes is likely to get 90% of the electoral votes as those 60% of the votes include 51% wins in opposition states. Think 1984 or 1964 or 1988. What DIFF really calculates is if the Electoral College were awarded proportionally, and the difference between EV and two-party vote share.

Of the elections where the winning candidate lost the popular vote, Trump's is the highest - he won 9 percentage points more of the Electoral College than he should have. It's ridiculous, and anyone who predicted his win based on data is lying. The data pointed to Hillary winning the popular vote, and she did. By a margin consistent with Jimmy Carter in 1976 or George W. Bush in 2004.

He's a big boy.

 

Let's be honest, everybody's predictions have been shit lately. As to why that is, I'm sure people will be writing books about it for years to come.

Thinking about it, quite a few of them have been written already.

 

I know. They're not great. So maybe let's both agree to know a little less?

 

Just on that point.

I'm the male version of this...

https://www.politicsforum.org/toxic-granny/

Warriors often underestimate Toxic Granny’s fighting abilities. She can be very aggressive, and because of the deference paid to the elderly, not only does Toxic Granny easily attract allies to aid in her defense, but her foes are reluctant to employ their strongest weapons against her. Prudent Warriors avoid confrontations with Toxic Granny because there is no glory in victory and defeat at her hands is ignominious.​

And, let me tell yer, I intend milking it for all it's worth

 

Well, that's just crazy talk

 

European Union agencies must be based in the EU. The decision to relocate EU agencies based in the UK is not part of the Brexit negotiations pic.twitter.com/74M6Zzd2Ee

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) April 19, 2017

"Additionally we have also decided to build a new EU fake news agency in order to cope with the amount of alternative facts coming out of Britain during the Brexit process. Thank you."

 

Initiating Operation Sea Lion II

Theresa May accuses remaining 27 EU members of ‘lining up to oppose’ Britain over Brexit

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-brexit-success-eu-tory-leader-a7706096.html