Politics
Amy Klobuchar- She is 59 and although off to a poor start opinion poll wise, did well in recent debates and is making progress although still well behind. She is a huge price in some of the early state elections.
Andrew Yang- Aged 44 and again is making progress and is huge prices.
Betting has been all over the place the last few months.
Feb 17, 2020 -- 1:36PM, politicspunter wrote:
Latest Nevada poll..Steyer 17%Klobuchar 16%Biden 14%Sanders 13%Buttigieg 13%Warren 7%Gabbard 2%
what happened here 
Feb 23, 2020 -- 4:06AM, aaronh wrote:
Feb 17, 2020 -- 7:36PM, politicspunter wrote:Latest Nevada poll..Steyer 17%Klobuchar 16%Biden 14%Sanders 13%Buttigieg 13%Warren 7%Gabbard 2%what happened here
Some of the polls are well erm.. not believable as they are commissioned by parties with a vested interest in the result.
Feb 23, 2020 -- 6:08AM, politicspunter wrote:
Feb 23, 2020 -- 10:06AM, aaronh wrote:Feb 17, 2020 -- 7:36PM, politicspunter wrote:Latest Nevada poll..Steyer 17%Klobuchar 16%Biden 14%Sanders 13%Buttigieg 13%Warren 7%Gabbard 2%what happened hereSome of the polls are well erm.. not believable as they are commissioned by parties with a vested interest in the result.
what poll was it?
This looks more accurate as regards Wisconsin.
Feb 23, 2020 -- 8:20AM, razz wrote:
Feb 23, 2020 -- 12:08PM, politicspunter wrote:Feb 23, 2020 -- 10:06AM, aaronh wrote:Feb 17, 2020 -- 7:36PM, politicspunter wrote:Latest Nevada poll..Steyer 17%Klobuchar 16%Biden 14%Sanders 13%Buttigieg 13%Warren 7%Gabbard 2%what happened hereSome of the polls are well erm.. not believable as they are commissioned by parties with a vested interest in the result.what poll was it?
https://www.pointblankpolitical.com/nv-democratic-caucus-2020/
This one. Allegedly one of the main organisers is a republican official.
point blank political
We can't say they didn't warn us that it was a politically biased poll!!!
I see Biden's strength in unionised Clark County (Las Vegas) has allowed him to inch ahead of Mayor Pete on both first and final alignment totals (for now - 60% reporting). Pete was claiming 2nd place when he had the 2nd top final alignment numbers.
I wonder which metric Sanders will use this time - first alignment 33%, final 39%, c.c.d. 46% !!
Wisconsin...too close to call, lean democrat.
Michigan...lean democrat
Pennsylvania..toss up.
Florida...too close to call, lean republican.
Arizona..too close to call, lean republican.
Texas.. republican favourite.
Georgia...republican favourite
Ohio..republican favourite.
Iowa..republican favourite
North Carolina..toss up.
Trump won all these states in 2016.
23 Feb 20 15:33
Joined: 20 Mar 18
| Topic/replies: 10,948 | Blogger: politicspunter's blog
Looking at competitive states...
Wisconsin...too close to call, lean democrat.
Michigan...lean democrat
Pennsylvania..toss up.
Florida...too close to call, lean republican.
Arizona..too close to call, lean republican.
Texas.. republican favourite.
Georgia...republican favourite
Ohio..republican favourite.
Iowa..republican favourite
North Carolina..toss up.
Trump won all these states in 2016.
^
And Trump was way behind in the polls in those states all the way through in 2016.
I would not back Bernie to beat Trump even with your money PP!
America will not elect someone who believes in nationalising things like health care and giving away free stuff Corbyn style. It is not going to happen.
Feb 23, 2020 -- 9:27AM, thegiggilo wrote:
Looking on twitter democrat moderates sound like they want sanders to lose,een though they obviously hate trump they say there's no way he can win,was reading something from a famous black author over there last night..She was saying trumo only has to win 80,000 votes in the south where he can say sanders is a commie and he will win,reckons hes past the post already with the smesring and trumps been campaigning in these areas since 2017..Forgot what her name was now as trying to find her feed.
MSNBC might actually be worse than FOX
23 Feb 20 16:05
Joined: 18 Sep 09
| Topic/replies: 267,887 | Blogger: aaronh's blog
Bernie is the only one that can beat Trump, hope this helps
^
If that is the case then Trump wins again.
Hope this helps.
Bernie is popular with independents in comparison to others, will harness the Hispanic vote way better than any other. A lot more of these are generally socially conservative in comparison to dem party and could easily be swayed by Trump otherwise.
Bernie is following Corbyn's playbook of the 'movement', it being 'more than just voting for individual', 'the many not the few', and lets give away lots of free stuff and change the world.
This appeals to a very vocal group of sycophants as was the case with momentum in the UK that gives a false sense of how popular the ideas are.
But ultimately I cannot see it winning over the silent majority. For instance 160m Americans pay into healthcare and I just cannot see them wanting it nationalised.
When/If Bernie enters a head to head race he will no longer to say he a 'democratic socialist' without actually stating what he means by that. For instance does he still believe all oil companies should be nationalised? How is he going to finance all his free stuff?
Bernie will probably still be calling himself a democratic socialist because that's what he is.
Were Trump's tax cuts for the rich well costed?
Who is going to pay for like the 700bn military bill?
they stopped bernie last time
The constitutional amendment, approved by more than 65 percent of Florida voters in 2018, restored voting rights to felons “who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation,” excluding people “convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense.” Lawmakers during the 2019 legislative session then approved the requirement to pay “legal financial obligations” , which has been ruled against by a judge and unsuccessfully appealed by the governor who is now asking for a full hearing by the court of appeal. Dragging it out until after the 202 election.
Maybe Bloomberg should use some loose change to pay off the “legal financial obligations” for the released felons who want to vote. He can start off with those owing the least first then work his way up.
Just to see the look on the face of the governor and those GOP in the state house and senate – would be well worth the cost.
4 MORE YEARS...I REPEAT...
4 MORE YEARS...you can get back to talking about wrestling
23 Feb 20 18:24
Joined: 20 Mar 18
| Topic/replies: 10,952 | Blogger: politicspunter's blog
Hopefully some of the thick racist clowns that have appeared will go away.
^
Haven't seen any racism on this thread.
All I have seen is people questioning the relevance of some polls that suggest DJT might lose in November.
play the silly race card - they themselves are raycysts by doing so
hitler's lot would love this tactic
Trumps 2016 narrative was – you've been screwed by Washington, and I'll drain the swamp and Make America Great Again (MAGA).
Disastrous trade deals shipped your jobs overseas, immigrants are taking your jobs and keeping your wages low and I'll build a wall to stop them, and America will start winning again etc, etc
Sanders message is – You've been screwed by the 1%, and with your help I'll bring the house down and build a better more inclusive one. We already have socialism for the rich, lets have some for main street – you deserve it. All policies are subservient to this message but support it.
Make the rich pay their fair share.
Medicare For All – everyone else has it, the 1% (big pharma, Health Insurance) are stopping you getting it.
Etc etc etc. …..
The message is simple and persuasive.
The fact that it is almost impossible to deliver is irrelevant, people deep down probably know that, but they know that Sanders will be trying – for them – and that will be enough.
Trump brought new voters to the party, which is exactly what Sanders is trying to do.
This is a base election, and it's all about turnout.
In the 2016 election folks simply never turned out for Clinton because they believed she was going to win, the result was in the bag according to polls. In the midterm elections in 2018, they turned up for the democratic party as they didn't want a repeat. The democrats took the House and failed narrowly to take the Senate.
No they didn`t, the Reps actually tripled their majority!
Feb 23, 2020 -- 5:36PM, timbuctooth wrote:
politicspunter 23 Feb 20 21:35 In the 2016 election folks simply never turned out for Clinton because they believed she was going to win, the result was in the bag according to polls. In the midterm elections in 2018, they turned up for the democratic party as they didn't want a repeat. The democrats took the House and failed narrowly to take the Senate.No they didn`t, the Reps actually tripled their majority!
You are correct. The problem the democrats faced was that of the seats up for election, twenty six were democrat held and only nine were republican held. The democrats were only able to win two thirds of the seats.
Feb 20, 2020 -- 10:29PM, timbuctooth wrote:
tyco161 20 Feb 20 20:17 I find it quite interesting that the Democratic Nominee market is trading in the 94% range. So plenty of expectation that none of the 49 listed in the market will become the nominee?It`s worse than that, as 36 of the 49 are at 1000, (anyone following this closely knows they should all be a million), so you can take off 3.6 from that `94%`, leaving 91%-ish. Further discount the likes of Patrick who are still priced in three figures even though they`re out, and you`re at 90.x%; Then, instead of taking those prices, asking for even just one tick better (and given the decent liquidity, nearly all will be taken), and you`re left backing the remaining runners at about 1/8. Normally in such a market, `Any Other` would be very dangerous but there are only two people in America that could yet enter the race and possibly win the Nom, hillary and michelle, but both are amongst the backed runners, included in the 1/8, so no danger there. Even if the entirely unforeseen happens, you`re left with plenty of wriggle room, being able to back any new runner at anything above 8/1 before you`re in trouble.
Interesting synopsis. I have been backing the field and taking a red on the outsiders. Will be interesting to see what happens at the convention.
23 Feb 20 21:26
Joined: 07 Mar 01
| Topic/replies: 907 | Blogger: MartinK's blog
The reason Sanders will win is because he's plundered Trumps 2016 playbook, but with a different narrative.
Trumps 2016 narrative was – you've been screwed by Washington, and I'll drain the swamp and Make America Great Again (MAGA).
Disastrous trade deals shipped your jobs overseas, immigrants are taking your jobs and keeping your wages low and I'll build a wall to stop them, and America will start winning again etc, etc
Sanders message is – You've been screwed by the 1%, and with your help I'll bring the house down and build a better more inclusive one. We already have socialism for the rich, lets have some for main street – you deserve it. All policies are subservient to this message but support it.
Make the rich pay their fair share.
Medicare For All – everyone else has it, the 1% (big pharma, Health Insurance) are stopping you getting it.
Etc etc etc. …..
The message is simple and persuasive.
The fact that it is almost impossible to deliver is irrelevant, people deep down probably know that, but they know that Sanders will be trying – for them – and that will be enough.
Trump brought new voters to the party, which is exactly what Sanders is trying to do.
This is a base election, and it's all about turnout.
^
Democrat leaning voters generally favour socialism over capitalism.
This is why Bernie could well finally win the nomination.
The problem he faces is republican leaning voters and indepedent voters favour capitalism over socialism to a far greater extent.
He will lose more democrats than gains he will make from the Republicans by being socialist.
Bernie is very unclear (like Corbyn was) on exactly what he supports in terms of free enterprise. At their core it appears they do NOT support some people being billionaires. They find it fundamentally unjust that some people are so rich. They do not support the American dream. Once you take that away what is America? Remember back in 2008/11 when Betfair brought in the premium charge and growth went from 40% a year to zero - take away the chance of the dream winning and everything stops. That is why socialist economies from USSR to Venezuela fail.
I hear Bernie talk about the 'Nordic model'. These are highly free enterprise companies that have limited state intervention. Yes they have a lot of welfare but they also have high levels of education and wealth. They are highly capitalist societies with small numbers of population. The Nordic model allows billionaires (although a number of them are in Switzerland now for tax reasons). What is his plan to actually achieve that in America for 320m people in a four year term in office?
Like Corbyn before him Bernie will not be believed by enough hard working voters who want to keep more of their own money and decide what to do with it than have the state manage it for them. The really radical thing would be to encourage smaller/medium business and break up monopolies. To encourage growth that way to pay for welfare he wants. You cannot just offer more welfare saying you will get the rich (under the current system) to pay for it. It will not work.
https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/23/internal-polls-suggest-big-super-tuesday-win-for-sanders/
“Because of Democratic rules that give no delegates to candidates who scores less than 15 percent of the vote in a state or congressional district, Sanders could build a delegate lead far greater than his advantage in the popular vote.”
Meanwhile, Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey tells Mike Allen that according to his models, if the current field remains on Super Tuesday, Sanders would win about 30% of the vote — and 45% of the delegates
If he does that and actually gets to the convention with a plurality of 40%-45% then the establishment would rip the party apart if the took it away from him.
If he did get such a lead super Tuesday he could well snowball and actually get a majority.
In an ideal world Sanders would prefer that billionaires didn't exist, but he'll accept that the best he can hope for is to try to tax them a little harder, and go after their capital via a modest wealth tax – along with closing the loopholes that allow companies like Amazon to pay 0 federal taxes in 2017 and 2018.
He's not against the American dream, quite the opposite, he wants a more level playing field to allow all Americans to chase that dream, and with free public college, and getting rid of student debt along with a single payer health care system people would be free of those monetary worries to focus on their own career development – take risks knowing that if they fail they don't have to worry about healthcare.
His tax plans to raise money for Medicare For All are modest and replace premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out of pocket expenses. It's a message which may be difficult to sell, but it does counter the “everything is free” criticism which will be directed at him.
Corbyn net favourables were much worse against Johnsons than Sanders are against Trump. Their RCP averages for Favourable/ Favourable are Sanders 45.3/48 Trump 43/54.
The Green New Deal will encourage growth in new jobs as well as infrastructure and house building – there will be a boom under sanders – initiated via government spending but that money will be spent into the economy and then multiplied as it gets re-spend and of course eventually taxed out of the economy as well.
But Sanders will keep the message simple – 1% bad 99% good.
He is talking about bring in free dental and eye care as well.
This is a massive transfer from the private to state sector. When the NHS started it was nationalising a tiny industry. Almost 80 years later for a country over 50 times the size to try and make such a major shift in one go seems impossible to me.
Now we all know how great the NHS is. It costs $139bn a year to fund and desperately need another $60bn plus a year for old age social care. It is tremendously inefficient.
Both countries need solutions but they need to be better thought out.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:18AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
I do not think it helps anyone to be divisive against a minority (1% vs 99% etc). Scapegoating all the problems on the 1% simply will not work.
But the working class are not being shafted on accident, those who cant afford to go see a doctor are not being shafted on accident and so on.
The rich and powerful probably did it to you and in some cases they are billionaires and part of the reason they are is because they have the power and wealth to take advantage of you
In latest poll, Sanders increases his lead, now ahead with black voters and confidence rising he will beat Trump.
24 Feb 20 16:45
Joined: 18 Sep 09
| Topic/replies: 267,951 | Blogger: aaronh's blog
How much of that 30 trillion are people already paying in scandalous insurance prices, IT?
^
Way under that. Remember that there are over 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants Bernie wants to add to the list. Then he is adding denistry and eye care for free as well.
I just see it as a major problem if the state is going to go from zero to running a $3tr a year operation. This number will only grow as well.
What happens as healthcare and social care (not just America but everywhere) goes from 20% of GDP to 30% to 40% etc? We need a solution and just opening a state run black hole may not be the optimal solution.
24 Feb 20 19:21
Joined: 20 Mar 18
| Topic/replies: 10,962 | Blogger: politicspunter's blog
https://morningconsult.com/2020/02/24/bernie-sanders-rising-post-nevada-polling/
In latest poll, Sanders increases his lead, now ahead with black voters and confidence rising he will beat Trump.
^
I wish you luck with your bet of Sanders against Trump.
If he wins I guess you will keep the bet. If Trump wins my guess is you will have traded out.
Biden 1.99
Sanders 1.99
Any price the rest.
That Quinnipiac Wisconsin poll had Trump up by +7 over Sanders which looked a little out of line, and I was waiting for the Marquette poll, well I'm still waiting, but a Univ. of Wis/State Journal poll (538 report it as Yougov b- ) has Sanders +2 over Trump in Wisconsin (Pa +2 and Mi +7).
politicspunter • February 23, 2020 2:33 PM GMT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday#2020
This looks more accurate as regards Wisconsin.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 2:44PM, tyco161 wrote:
Market is saying Sanders has about a 2.23 chance vs Trump. But market is also saying that the chance of a republican win is at 1.66 or Dem win at 2.50. Trying to make sense of these figures. I suppose Sanders is still only a 1.90 shot to be the dem nominee and others will have a lot less chance vs Trump. Some funny math though in these markets and totally not efficient.
It's pretty hard to price unknowns though.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:00PM, politicspunter wrote:
For example if you think Sanders is certain to win the democratic nomination (he's not) and he will be against Trump (fairly certain) then you would probably be best taking the 4.2 on him for next President.
Maybe you are right there. But then there are a lot of other opportunities abounding as you can back Sanders at 4.20 and lay him at 1.90 for a (risk free) trade. But that is assuming he will be 2's if the does become the nominee. I don't think he will be. I think it would be Trump 1.66 Sanders 2.50 in a head to head.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:04PM, tyco161 wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:00PM, politicspunter wrote:For example if you think Sanders is certain to win the democratic nomination (he's not) and he will be against Trump (fairly certain) then you would probably be best taking the 4.2 on him for next President.Maybe you are right there. But then there are a lot of other opportunities abounding as you can back Sanders at 4.20 and lay him at 1.90 for a (risk free) trade. But that is assuming he will be 2's if the does become the nominee. I don't think he will be. I think it would be Trump 1.66 Sanders 2.50 in a head to head.
But you would lose all your bets if Sanders won the democratic nomination then lost to Trump?
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:09PM, politicspunter wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:04PM, tyco161 wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:00PM, politicspunter wrote:For example if you think Sanders is certain to win the democratic nomination (he's not) and he will be against Trump (fairly certain) then you would probably be best taking the 4.2 on him for next President.Maybe you are right there. But then there are a lot of other opportunities abounding as you can back Sanders at 4.20 and lay him at 1.90 for a (risk free) trade. But that is assuming he will be 2's if the does become the nominee. I don't think he will be. I think it would be Trump 1.66 Sanders 2.50 in a head to head.But you would lose all your bets if Sanders won the democratic nomination then lost to Trump?
No because once he became the nominee you can lay off that 4.20 bet at 2.00 and make money regardless.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:12PM, tyco161 wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:09PM, politicspunter wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:04PM, tyco161 wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:00PM, politicspunter wrote:For example if you think Sanders is certain to win the democratic nomination (he's not) and he will be against Trump (fairly certain) then you would probably be best taking the 4.2 on him for next President.Maybe you are right there. But then there are a lot of other opportunities abounding as you can back Sanders at 4.20 and lay him at 1.90 for a (risk free) trade. But that is assuming he will be 2's if the does become the nominee. I don't think he will be. I think it would be Trump 1.66 Sanders 2.50 in a head to head.But you would lose all your bets if Sanders won the democratic nomination then lost to Trump?No because once he became the nominee you can lay off that 4.20 bet at 2.00 and make money regardless.
But you could only do that if Sanders was 2.0 (or less) v Trump?
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:19PM, politicspunter wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:12PM, tyco161 wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:09PM, politicspunter wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:04PM, tyco161 wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:00PM, politicspunter wrote:For example if you think Sanders is certain to win the democratic nomination (he's not) and he will be against Trump (fairly certain) then you would probably be best taking the 4.2 on him for next President.Maybe you are right there. But then there are a lot of other opportunities abounding as you can back Sanders at 4.20 and lay him at 1.90 for a (risk free) trade. But that is assuming he will be 2's if the does become the nominee. I don't think he will be. I think it would be Trump 1.66 Sanders 2.50 in a head to head.But you would lose all your bets if Sanders won the democratic nomination then lost to Trump?No because once he became the nominee you can lay off that 4.20 bet at 2.00 and make money regardless.But you could only do that if Sanders was 2.0 (or less) v Trump?
well 2.21 or less with the metrics we were working with. But yes you do have to have a view. But if you can back Klobuchar at 80 in the Democratic nominee market and lay her at 110 in the presidential market, well you know you are onto a huge winner. No way would she be 1.38 if she was the nominee. etc etc.
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:22PM, tyco161 wrote:
As an example, I just layed Tulsi Gabbard at 1000 in the presidential market and backed her at 850 in the nominee market. Nice trade.
How much did you lay Tulsi Gabbard for at 1000 in the presidential market?
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:27PM, politicspunter wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:22PM, tyco161 wrote:As an example, I just layed Tulsi Gabbard at 1000 in the presidential market and backed her at 850 in the nominee market. Nice trade.How much did you lay Tulsi Gabbard for at 1000 in the presidential market?
Just $9 at this stage. Why you ask?
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:29PM, tyco161 wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:27PM, politicspunter wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:22PM, tyco161 wrote:As an example, I just layed Tulsi Gabbard at 1000 in the presidential market and backed her at 850 in the nominee market. Nice trade.How much did you lay Tulsi Gabbard for at 1000 in the presidential market?Just $9 at this stage. Why you ask?
You must be working with a very substantial size of bank on that President market?
Feb 24, 2020 -- 3:30PM, politicspunter wrote:
Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:29PM, tyco161 wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:27PM, politicspunter wrote:Feb 24, 2020 -- 9:22PM, tyco161 wrote:As an example, I just layed Tulsi Gabbard at 1000 in the presidential market and backed her at 850 in the nominee market. Nice trade.How much did you lay Tulsi Gabbard for at 1000 in the presidential market?Just $9 at this stage. Why you ask?You must be working with a very substantial size of bank on that President market?
Well you do need a large bank if you are working with the outsiders. But with the favourites you can do it with as little as $1,000. I have enough to be able to lay 1000 odds.
This puts his over plans to over $60tr.
What next? Free broadband for all?
CNN do not appear happy at prospect of Sanders winning the nomination. Who would they support Sanders vs Trump?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html
The serf-ication of the working class such that in many cases wages are so low that the mother needs to work for the family to survive.
The PPP is the only S.C. poll since Biden's magnificent 2nd in Nevada, still I'd like to see it replicated before I take it on face value.
Biden 1.28
Sanders 4.6
Maybe he's not the wrong type of jew..
#National Poll Among Jewish Voters:
Sanders 65%
Trump 30%
A quite interesting blog from the Greenville News - "South Carolina primary: Live updates from polling sites across the state"
https://eu.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/29/south-carolina-democratic-primary-live-updates-election-results/4739003002/
A few examples of entries:
Rock Hill 3:38 Poll clerk Helen Maloney has known all 17 voters by name that have come into Bullocks Creek Fire Department to cast their ballots.
The polling place in Sharon saw only 13 voters in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Maloney said she and the two other poll managers with her are reading books and working on crafts to pass the time. They had a little bit of trouble setting up the new machines this morning, but everything has been working smoothly ever since.
Elections director Wanda Hemphill said there haven’t been any voting machine issues countywide besides a few little bumps getting the machines set up in the morning.
“The machines are doing fine,” Hemphill said. “We got the toughest part over with.”
Pendleton 2:40 p.m. Four hundred votes at Pendleton Elementary School, which had the county’s highest turnout in the 2016 democratic primary outside of the city of Anderson. In 2016, it had 347 total votes.
Greenville 1:34 p.m. Things were running smoothly at Springfield Baptist Church, where poll manager Sandis Sullivan said they'd had a good turnout so far. By noon, the polling site had 407 votes in, including 123 absentee ballots. Fifteen minutes before polls opened, Springfield had a line of voters waiting to cast ballots, Sullivan said. Most striking for the polling location, however, was the number of young people who'd come out to vote, Sullivan said. The numbers were noticeably higher than with some other elections, he added.
Antisemtic Israel,wrong type of jew bernie,really ramping it on msm in America an absolute disgrace again,although not as much of a diosgrace as over here obviously..
Socialism 56 (+19)
Capitalism 37
#California
Socialism 57 (+12)
Capitalism 45
CBS News/YouGov poll of Dem voters
