The last prediction:
The last estimate. Note that 36 seats are within 2 points. A small swing will have a large effect. https://t.co/g842EmAPLW @DemFromCT pic.twitter.com/aDhWSOsSHb
— dcg1114 (@dcg1114) June 8, 2017
The best summary of the race: it shows the outcome if a pollster is right.
There is enormous volatility in this race: more than I have ever seen outside of a primary.
This estimates the seats for each. This is the best way to look at potential results: it shows the volatility. pic.twitter.com/6Sn3Spvjdt
— dcg1114 (@dcg1114) June 8, 2017
The scope of Labour’s comeback is remarkable.
I went back and looked 50 years for US elections, and back to ’93 for the UK (though only 2001 on are in the chart).
There is only 1 election that is close: the 1968 Presidential Election.
As I show below, the spread in polling (ranging from Conservatives +12 to Conservatives +1) is also historic.
Here is evidence that Labour tend to under perform.
There is also evidence that the Labour surge has stopped, but there is no evidence it has receded.
Thursday will be dramatic indeed.
And the fact that it is should remind everyone how unpredictable politics can be.
Labour's surge is historic. Only Humphrey in '68 made up as much ground this fast- 50 years ago. pic.twitter.com/KixInP5XVI
— dcg1114 (@dcg1114) June 6, 2017
This is the updated projection:
My prediction updated. Note: the spread in polling is very large and there are a large number of seats within 3 points. Anything can happen pic.twitter.com/Bbn6MCn1rB
— dcg1114 (@dcg1114) June 6, 2017
What is remarkable is the wide spread in polling.
The current spread in UK polling (ranging from Cons +12 to Cons +1) is the largest in decades. @britainelects @ForecasterEnten pic.twitter.com/EKvfNDwBxd
— dcg1114 (@dcg1114) June 6, 2017
You might not be using the correct comparative data set. Unfortunately, the date in that set is one. The the last UK snap general election
Much speculation that the outcome could be similar.
For UK elections I counted from the day the election was called until election day, then compared the same length of time to prior US and UK elections.
The largest conservative lead was 9, and they won by 3. This was an example, though, of the popular vote winner not winning power.
It is not close to Labour has seen in this election.
Since the October 1974 general election, they’ve been held in the fifth year. So, while the specific date of the election (and therefore, the formal period of the campaign) isn’t set, everybody is gearing up for it to take place in that year.
Actually, Labour with Tony Blair as party leader won general elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005.
I didn’t say a damn thing about party leaders or PMs as to when UK general elections are called/held, but you apparently couldn’t resist a very weak opportunity to shill for the neoliberal Blair.
The 1997 and 2001 general elections were held in the fifth year of Parliament(maximum length five years). Going for his third term, Blair cut that short in 2005 by over a month (less than four years from the prior election). Giving Labour up to five more years in office even as many Labour lost 48 seats — which they took full advantage of, but Blair was out as party leader and PM two years into that term.
Time since the last general election:
Thatcher: 1983 and 1987 – four years and one month
Majors: 1992 four years and ten months and 1997 five years.
Blair: 2001 four years and one month and 2005 three years and almost eleven months.
Brown: 2010 five years
Cameron: 2015 five years.
I hasten to add for the UK I went back only as far as ’93, though.
Roughly the numbers say Conservatives by 6% if the distribution is normally distributed, meeting all the independence of sample requirements.
Not going to be a “moral victory” but might keep Corbyn in Labor leadership.
Effect on legislative process will be more telling for the next election and trend changes. As will the geographical distribution of the vote.
I should think coming from far behind from the time the election was called to a near victory should be enough to keep him as the leader. Certainly I don’t think the Blair wing would be in a position to have a winning argument in an intraparty tussle, especially after the recent terror incidents for which that wing must share the blame.
Despite running a good campaign, I thought Corbyn should have been more forceful, especially in the televised events, in going after PM May on terrorism/security issues, including how it was that several of the terrorists were on MI5’s security threat list, yet were obviously not watched. He brought those things up after Manchester, but not quite as aggressively as he could have.
Looking forward to watching some election returns tomorrow, even as it appears the Tories will remain in power.
The “Blair wing” of Labour “must share the blame” for lunatics driving vehicles into crowds and then attacking people in pubs with knives? ISIS didn’t exist at the time that the British government joined the US to invade Iraq.
The great thing about the whole concept of blowback is that it explains everything…and thus explains nothing.
You are worse than a clock, so wrong every time!
President Trump explains the 9/11 attacks on America – here.
Blow-back!
I will put up a blog tomorrow night.
You are right to suggest Corbyn’s message is going to look like a winner.
The latest numbers tonight average out out to Labour down 5.5%. There is one poll showing a Labour lead, that looks very suspicious.
I would guess the Conservatives will win between 7 and 10 – but really anything could happen.
As I said – this is the largest polling spread in history.
Most think the result will turnout on youth turnout. For Labour to get close to denying the Conservatives a majority, they will need them to turnout.
There are Dems here who were ready to link Corbyn to Sanders, and argue the Progressive will lead the Democratic Party to disaster. They will still make the argument if the loss goes north of 8, but if it close the progressives here may get some credibility.
It’s not an ideal situation to have to depend too much on the youth to turn out to vote. They’re usually too busy listening to rock ‘n’ roll music, hot rodding around town in their father’s Buick, going to drive-in movies, and hanging out for hours at the malt shoppe or beatnicking it at the local jazz club.
I’ve learned to be cautious about them ever since 1972 when they failed to turn out for an early version of Corbyn, one George McGovern. Ferchrissakes, they even gave a slight majority to the forever-old Orthogonian Dick Nixon.
They (18-24s) showed up at a modest 43% rate for the regular 2015 UK election, but at over 60% for the Brexit vote. It’s estimated that 2/3 of them favor Labour.
Per recent Guardian article.
I said Clinton would win by 8+ based on an assumption of how the youth vote will break.
I am skeptical they will vote.
But no one really knows.