Are the models that have the Lib Dems gaining a bunch of seats while getting less than their vote share in 2019 robust? It feels like these models were built primarily using data from a string of Conservative victories and they get warped once the Conservatives fall below a certain point.
I think south of the Severn-Wash line the LD would get lots of seats from tactical voting like in 1997.
North of that line it's Labour, with a bit of Reform along the UKIP coast, that would be the main beneficiaries.
Here is an example of generic Tory safe midlands seat
Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.
2019
CON 60 LAB 15 LD 10
Now according to polls it ought to be:
CON 30 LAB 20 REF 20 LD 15
Generic safe Tory seat in the rural south:
Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.
2019
CON 60 LAB 15 LD 15
Now according to polls it ought to be:
CON 30 LAB 25 LD 25 REF 10
As you see it wont take much effort to completely wipeout the Conservatives, but the wipeout would benefit different parties in different cultural regions, and tactical voting could play a role to suppress the Conservative seats numbers even more.
I'm assuming national polls can't capture movement from tactical voting then? It seems like the Lib Dems would have to rise in vote share to win those seats, given that they are projected to majorly benefit from tactical voting in 10-20% of the electorate, but it would also make sense if national polls could not pick up on that. Basically the difference between the party vote and the constituency vote in MMP.
National polls didn't pick it up in 1997, that's why the Tories where surprised that they lost way more seats than predicted.
Tactical voting was heavy and broke along cultural regional lines, and it was pre-internet coordination.
But guys, remember, Gretchen Whitmer/Andy Beshear wouldn't have fared much better than Biden against Trump! /S
This is kind of a pointless talking point, because there was never going to be a swapping of Biden for some random governor who never ran, or any possibility of replacing him with anyone besides Harris. Now if you want to argue Harris would be a better candidate that's one thing, but any other scenario was never feasible.
It isn't pointless because you know, Biden has double digit negative approvals and should have never ran for re-election in the first place? Allowing an open primary in which Harris would have to fight against people like Gretchen Whitmer who could easily argue the former is not as electable as them? Come on man!
Justified morally? Sure, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a stick they used to make Qatar help them get the children out. Smart? Absolutely not, and even the likes of Netanyahu know it.
Is there any reason the idea of 'Muslim' opinion (as opposed to Palestinian) over Gaza should be respected? Any Muslim other than a Palestinian themselves who is a single issue voter over Gaza is clearly motivated only by Islamism and and the Islamic religious claim on Jerusalem
The same way the "Jewish opinion" or a "Christian opinion" over Gaza should be taken into account as well given how important the wider region is important to all three faiths. And even if they're now turning out to vote based upon wider loyalty to Islam and the global ummah, it is still good they're actually turning out to vote now in the first place.
No the “Christian opinion” shouldn’t matter too and it’s false equivalency to say the “Jewish Opinion” is on par with the other two . The two dominant religions oppressed Jews for centuries and also there are multiple Christian and Muslim countries while there is only one Jewish country .
