rotekz wrote: 
It's nice that you work for the Trump machine but you are pretty much pissing in the wind around here.

The Republican establishment plans to rob Trump at the RNC by engineering a brokered convention that ultimately leads to a Hillary win. They would rather trade with Hillary than lose power and influence with Trump who will refuse their money.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/would-a-brokered-convention-stop-donald-trump/

Another great Scott Adams blog post that discusses Trump's charisma and how consistent behaviour patterns can overcome a perceived lack of empathy in some voters minds.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/137221841136/charisma-vs-danger-master-persuader-series

 

Uh-oh. It looks like New York is not too enamoured with Cruz' comment about Trump supporters. 



 

"The police are the most mistreated people in this country."

 rotekz wrote:
It may very well have been wrong, but we don't know because we don't have the actual numbers. There was a decline from 2005 to 2010 in Labour votes (68%) among migrants and it may have persisted. Or it may not have.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
At the 2015 general election the pollsters got it completely wrong. It destroyed their reputations. Yet you have linked a Telegraph news story that is based on these pre-election polls. The news story and predictions within have no credibility now.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Sure, why not.  I bet that most are thinking of me as a nazi since I support Trump based on what has been posted earlier.

Doesn't change the issue however.   Seeings how your an open border guy an all, I bet that you have long ago removed all the locks on your doors to show support for that cause.

 rotekz wrote: 
You're right, it was from patterns and intentions, just before the conclusion. I didn't say they preferred Tory, merely that the Tories won and that migrants were moving away from Labour. Indecisiveness, along with the rest of the electorate, would have to mean less loyalty to Labour on their part, no?

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The part you quoted was not from the conclusion section and cannot be described as the conclusion of the report. Also the crucial part of your quoted section is as follows:

There is no evidence that BAME support is shifting decisively in the direction of a different political party. Rather, many BAME voters are now as unsure about which way to vote as the rest of the electorate.

It is a prediction of INDECISIVENESS and nothing more.

There is no evidence or data to show that migrants now prefer to vote Tory. 

 rotekz wrote: 
No, I already pointed out that the report reached a different conclusion then you did. I did not and would not say they no longer vote for Labour. The majority probably still does, but the report, once again, makes the case that the trend is away from Labour. The tables (as well as the list of minority MPs) already showed there is some (limited) variety.

Well, the BBC does make up stuff on occasion, but that's not really relevant here.

 aflanigan wrote: 
They were screenshots of the report that Richard himself linked in the first place. Read it.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
The first two sets of data were from the report that YOU linked. Are you trying to say your report is no good? The BBC report used 2010 election data. Do you accuse the BBC of making stuff up? The fourth set of data came from the electoral commission after the 2005 election. Again are you trying to say they got it wrong? This smacks of desperation.

Now. Produce 2015 data that shows migrants no longer vote Labour. Until you do the figures that we have are those of the 2005 and 2010 general election that show migrants overwhelmingly voting for Labour. If you are going to say they no longer do you have to back it up with figures that show it.

 

 rotekz wrote: 
So you consider a single photo which may well have been photoshopped as comprehensive data to establish the voting habits of a certain class of people?

EDIT: Richard caught this as well.

 rotekz wrote: 
I might have missed it, but what was your (cold) hard data? Surely not the article by "Migrant Watch"? Or, for that matter, the tables from the report that conclude that there is a trend away from Labour among migrants?

The main winners in the elections were UKIP (like Trump, not likely to be supported by migrants) and the SNP. Big losers: LibDems, and Labour in Scotland (likely due to the SNP).

Until we have data for 2015, your air is as hot as mine.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
I am the only person using actual data. You are talking about a theoretical trend for indecisiveness. It amounts to nothing whilst all the voting data shows overwhelming support for Labour. You have nothing to show that migrants changed their previous propensity to vote Labour. Produce voting figures to show migrants no longer favour Labour.

 rotekz wrote: 
The report already showed the trend based on a study up to 2015 (you would need to look at the cited study).

I don't know if there's concrete data for 2015 post-election w.r.t. minorities/migrants. More data will likely not convince you anyway.

And that's based on the trend of your previous posts.

 RichardPrins wrote:
This is a presumption and is not followed up with any data. All data produced so far shows overwhelming migrant support for Labour. 

Saying they were unsure who to vote for before the 2015 election does not in any way mean they were going to vote Conservative. 
 

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Please provide figures that show migrants no longer overwhelmingly vote Labour. Actual data. Until you do it's all hot air.

 rotekz wrote:

The first article talks about what happened before 2005 (in conspiratorial terms no less). That was addressed in the earlier report. A different trend with regards to voting has been apparent.

It's no secret that migrants were and are allowed to migrate to European countries. It's been happening since the 60s. It was, and still is, relatively cheap labour. That's fine by most when the economy is doing well (and certain jobs, often low-paid, can't be filled easily). It then becomes a problem when this is no longer the case.

The second article said their vote might be decisive, and it turned out to be either false (if you counted on them to vote Labour) or true (if they decided to vote something else esp. Tory).

As mentioned earlier, the Tories won anyway (and if I remember correctly most polls got it wrong).