This is an important distinction. In the US the CFTC have only licensed two brokers to operate there — Nadex and CBOE. In Australia, ASIC Australian Securities and Investments Commission oversee brokerages.

Some firms are also regulated by the Malta Gaming Authority, or the Isle of Man GSC. In Europe, an organisation called ESMA European Securities and Markets Authority also suggest legislation or regulatory guidelines that the majority of domestic regulators adhere to. They recently suggested that binary options should be prohibited to retail investors — though this policy is rather ill-thought out and out dated.

Such changes will punish honest regulated brokers, leaving the dishonest scams to continue operating. Regulated brokers offer greater levels of consumer confidence than unregulated firms.

They are obliged to retain trader funds in separate accounts, and not in company accounts. They must provide a dispute process for customers, and treat clients equitably and fairly.

In addition, regulated firms can only market in a responsible way, and in regions where trading is permitted. Responsible brokers welcome regulation as a way to increase levels of consumer trust. Copy trading is a growing sector of investing. It allows users to copy the trades of others.

Those copying decide how much to invest, and whether to copy some or all of the trades that a particular trader or tipster opens. The traders being copied also benefit, as the broker will often reward these clients through commission, or increased income revenue and profits based on the trade volume they generate.

When copying however, time and effort spent finding the right traders to follow will pay dividends. Social trading is similar, but is more geared towards social media style info sharing. They were initially only available to large scale investors — institutions, wealthy individuals and funds. In however, the US Securities and Exchange Commission allowed these fixed return options to be traded over an exchange.

This allowed the Chicago Board Options Exchange CBOE and the American Stock Exchange to offer binary trading on certain underlying assets. Initially, the range of assets was limited, as were the choice of options. Nadex also began offering exchange traded options matching buyers and sellers in the US as the market developed. As popularity and commerce grew however, the traded assets moved beyond Forex and equities and the option types expanded as well.

The barriers to entry for potential market makers or brokers are much lower in the binary sector. This, coupled with the boom in internet trading over a similar period, has left regulation lagging behind the industry. The growth of binaries however, is unlikely to slow. The simplicity, coupled with the clarity of risk, allows almost anyone to take a view on a particular asset but manage their risk much more easily than versus contracts for difference or stocks purchases.

In order to learn binary options, traders have a wealth of learning opportunities and courses. Each trader is different, results will alter from different methods of learning.

Some may prefer a pdf file or spreadsheet on the subject, while others will learn most from diving in and getting some hands on experience. Here are a selection on learning methods:. Brokers are keen to give traders the confidence to start trading — and many offer some or all of the above for potential new clients to learn about binary options, generally for free. Some tools are only made available once a trader has registered — this is purely so the broker has some contact details for things like trading seminars or web based demonstrations.

A great way to learn binary options is via an online demonstration or seminar. Some brokers offer weekly seminars, some in a range of languages. Other firms will offer one on one training, but generally require a deposit beforehand.

Some traders benefit from downloading an eBook tutorial, and learning about binary options at their own pace. One note of caution, is that each broker will focus on their own trading platform and quotes for some of the explanations and screen shots.

Brokers want new traders to use their services. The good news is that while the look and feel of some trading platforms will differ, the underlying functions are the same — so the knowledge is transferable easily. We list the best here. Video tutorials are the most popular learning method. Some brokers do make more effort than others though, and viewers may also be presented with the same video at different brokers — only the voiceover has changed! There are however, some very good suites of videos available, and they are viewable without registering.

We have embedded a video from IQ Option which introduces their trading platform and online binary trading. They offer a full range of videos on their site. Firms constantly update their training portfolio, so there is no clear winner in this category. Brokers want to encourage trading, so they make it very easy for traders to learn the basics.

More advanced information is harder to come by from brokers — but hopefully the strategy and technical analysis pages on this website assist. Below are some of the questions and topics we are asked about most often regarding binary trading online. Hopefully these short paragraphs can provide an answer — but if not, there are a number of links to more in-depth articles that explain each subject area.

Put and Call options are simply the terms given to buying or selling an option. If a trader believes an asset will go up in value, they open a call. If they expect the value to fall, they place a put trade. Some binary trading brokers change their trading buttons every couple of seconds, from Call and Put, to Down and Up to avoid confusion.

Others dispense with the terms put and call entirely, using arrows instead. Icons are always clear so mistakes are not made. This percentage is made clear before the trade is made. Other than being higher or lower than the starting price, the closing price does not affect the magnitude of the payout. As binary trading becomes more sophisticated, the amount that can be won is evolving too.

Some brokers now offer trades that do depend on the size of any price movement. It depends entirely on the attitude of the trader. If a trader applies no strategy or research, then any investment is likely to be reliant on good fortune, and the odds are against them. On the other hand, a trader making a well thought out trade can ensure they have done all they can to avoid relying on luck.

Binary options, even those considered longer term, do not incur overnight charges, or rollover fees. Many brokers have developed Islamic trading accounts which adhere to Muslim guidance offering immediate execution of trades, and charging no interest. But traders need to tread carefully before deciding if trading binary options is legal, halal or haram. The answer may not be clear. A trader might use binaries with no planning, or strategy — effectively betting or using them to gamble.

This would be banned for most Muslims. For this reason, we cannot state categorically whether trading binaries are halal or haram. It will be down to the individual. At binaryoptions. uk, we provide a full suite of services and information to anyone looking to get involved in binary options trading.

From educational material and tutorials, to advanced strategy, tax implications and broker comparison. Binary options offer a form of market speculation. Providing a method of making money from price movement in the majority of major asset classes. Applies a list of FixReplacementInfo loaded from the ApplyProvidedFixInput entity. The fixes are passed as part of the request body. The application of the fixes creates a new change edit.

Apply Provided Fix can only be applied on the current patchset. If the ApplyProvidedFixInput was successfully applied, an EditInfo describing the resulting change edit is returned. As result a map is returned that maps the file path to a FileInfo entry. The request parameter reviewed changes the response to return a list of the paths the caller has marked as reviewed.

Clients that also need the FileInfo should make two requests. The request parameter q changes the response to return a list of all files modified or unmodified that contain that substring in the path name.

This is useful to implement suggestion services finding a file by partial name. For merge commits only, the integer-valued request parameter parent changes the response to return a map of the files which are different in this commit compared to the given parent commit. If not specified, the response contains a map of the files different in the auto merge result. The request parameter base changes the response to return a map of the files which are different in this commit compared to the given revision.

The revision must correspond to a patch set in the change. The reviewed , q , parent , and base options are mutually exclusive. That is, only one of them may be used at a time. The optional, integer-valued parent parameter can be specified to request the named file from a parent commit of the specified revision. If the parameter is omitted or the value is non-positive, the patch set is referenced.

The content is returned as base64 encoded string. A Gerrit-specific X-FYI-Content-Type header is returned describing the server detected content type of the file. Downloads the content of a file from a certain revision, in a safe format that poses no risk for inadvertent execution of untrusted code.

If the content type is defined as safe, the binary file content is returned verbatim. If the content type is not safe, the file is stored inside a ZIP file, containing a single entry with a random, unpredictable name having the same base and suffix as the true filename. The ZIP file is returned in verbatim binary form. See Gerrit config documentation for information about safe file type configuration. If the parameter is omitted or the value non-positive, the patch set is referenced.

If the intraline parameter is specified, intraline differences are included in the diff. The base parameter can be specified to control the base patch set from which the diff should be generated. The integer-valued request parameter parent can be specified to control the parent commit number against which the diff should be generated. This is useful for supporting review of merge commits.

The whitespace parameter can be specified to control how whitespace differences are reported in the result. Gets the diffs of all files for a certain {fix-id}. As response, a map of DiffInfo entities is returned that describes the diffs.

Each DiffInfo is the differences between the patch set indicated by revision-id and a virtual patch set with the applied fix. Gets the diffs of all files for a list of FixReplacementInfo loaded from the ApplyProvidedFixInput entity.

As response, a map of DiffInfo is returned that describes the diffs. No content on the server will be modified as part of this request.

If the Preview Provided Fix operation was successful, a DiffInfo previewing the change is returned. The base parameter can be specified to control the base patch set from which the blame should be generated. To cherry pick a commit with no change-id associated with it, see CherryPickCommit. The commit message and destination branch must be provided in the request body inside a CherryPickInput entity. If the commit message does not specify a Change-Id, a new one is picked for the destination change.

If the change is closed on the destination branch, the cherry-pick will fail. As response a ChangeInfo entity is returned that describes the resulting cherry-pick change.

Deletes a single vote from a revision. The deletion will be possible only if the revision is the current revision. By using this endpoint you can prevent deleting the vote with same label from a newer patch set by mistake.

Returns all users that are currently in the attention set. As response a list of AttentionSetInfo entity is returned. A user can only be added if they are not in the attention set. If a user is added while already in the attention set, the request is silently ignored.

Details should be provided in the request body as an AttentionSetInput entity. A user can only be removed from the attention set if they are currently in the attention set. Otherwise, the request is silently ignored. Reason can be provided in the request body as an AttentionSetInput entity. Attention Set is the set of users that should perform some action on the change. Also, users specified in the list will occur instead of any of the implicit changes to the attention set.

Identifier that uniquely identifies one change. The commit message and headers with the parent commit s , the author information and the committer information. The list of commits that are being integrated into the destination branch by submitting the merge commit.

This file path is used exclusively for posting and indicating patchset-level comments, thus not relevant for other use-cases. an abbreviated commit ID that uniquely identifies one revision of the change "ac" , at least 4 digits are required. Message to be added as review comment to the change when abandoning the change. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the change is abandoned. If not set, the default is ALL. Additional information about whom to notify about the update as a map of recipient type to NotifyInfo entity.

The ActionInfo entity describes a REST API call the client can make to manipulate a resource. These are frequently implemented by plugins and may be discovered at runtime. HTTP method to use with the action. Most actions use POST , PUT or DELETE to cause state changes. Short title to display to a user describing the action.

In the Gerrit web interface the label is used as the text on the button presented in the UI. Longer text to display describing the action. In a web UI this should be the title attribute of the element, displaying when the user hovers the mouse.

If true the action is permitted at this time and the caller is likely allowed to execute it. This may change if state is updated at the server or permissions are modified.

Not present if false. The patch to be applied. Must be compatible with git diff output. For example, Get Patch output. The ApplyPatchPatchSetInput entity contains information for creating a new patch set from a given patch. The details of the patch to be applied as a ApplyPatchInput entity.

The commit message for the new patch set. If not specified, a predefined message will be used. If set, it must be a merged commit or a change revision on the destination branch.

The author of the commit to create. Must be an AccountInput entity with at least the name and email fields set. The caller needs "Forge Author" permission when using this field, unless specifies their own details. This field does not affect the owner of the change, which will continue to use the identity of the caller. The ApprovalInfo entity contains information about an approval from a user for a label on a change.

ApprovalInfo has the same fields as AccountInfo. In addition ApprovalInfo has the following fields:. The vote that the user has given for the label. If present and zero, the user is permitted to vote on the label. If absent, the user is not permitted to vote on that label.

The VotingRangeInfo the user is authorized to vote on that label. If present, the user is permitted to vote on the label regarding the range values. Value of the tag field from ReviewInput set while posting the review. The ID of one account that should be added as assignee.

The AttentionSetInfo entity contains details of users that are in the attention set. The reason for adding or removing the user. AccountInfo of the user who caused the update. The AttentionSetInput entity contains details for adding users to the attention set and removing them from it.

ID of the account that should be added to the attention set. For removals, this field should be empty or the same as the field in the request header. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the change is created.

If not set, the default is OWNER. Additional information about whom to notify about the change creation as a map of recipient type to NotifyInfo entity. The BlameInfo entity stores the commit metadata with the row coordinates where it applies. The ChangeEditInput entity contains information for restoring a path within change edit. The ChangeEditMessageInput entity contains information for changing the commit message within a change edit.

The name of the target branch. The map that maps account IDs to AttentionSetInfo of that account. Those are all accounts that are currently in the attention set. Those are all accounts that were in the attention set but were removed. The AttentionSetInfo is the latest and most recent removal of the account from the attention set. The assignee of the change as an AccountInfo entity. The status of the change NEW , MERGED , ABANDONED. The timestamp of when the change was created.

The timestamp of when the change was last updated. The timestamp of when the change was submitted. The user who submitted the change, as an AccountInfo entity. A list of star labels that are applied by the calling user to this change. The labels are lexicographically sorted.

Whether the change was reviewed by the calling user. Only set if reviewed is requested. The submit type of the change. Not set for merged changes. Whether the change is mergeable. Only set for open changes if change. Whether the change has been approved by the project submit rules. Only set if requested.

Total number of inline comments across all patch sets. Number of unresolved inline comment threads across all patch sets. The numeric ID of the change. The underscore is just a relict of a prior attempt to deprecate the numeric ID. The owner of the change as an AccountInfo entity. Actions the caller might be able to perform on this revision. The information is a map of view name to ActionInfo entities.

List of the SubmitRecordInfo containing the submit records for the change at the latest patchset. List of the requirements to be met before this change can be submitted. List of the SubmitRequirementResultInfo containing the evaluated submit requirements for the change.

The labels of the change as a map that maps the label names to LabelInfo entries. Only set if labels or detailed labels are requested. A map of the permitted labels that maps a label name to the list of values that are allowed for that label. Only set if detailed labels are requested.

The reviewers that can be removed by the calling user as a list of AccountInfo entities. The reviewers as a map that maps a reviewer state to a list of AccountInfo entities. Possible reviewer states are REVIEWER , CC and REMOVED. REVIEWER : Users with at least one non-zero vote on the change. CC : Users that were added to the change, but have not voted. REMOVED : Users that were previously reviewers on the change, but have been removed. Updates to reviewers that have been made while the change was in the WIP state.

Only present on WIP changes and only if there are pending reviewer updates to report. These are reviewers who have not yet been notified about being added to or removed from the change.

Updates to reviewers set for the change as ReviewerUpdateInfo entities. Only set if reviewer updates are requested. Messages associated with the change as a list of ChangeMessageInfo entities.

Only set if messages are requested. The commit ID of the current patch set of this change. Only set if the current revision is requested or if all revisions are requested. All patch sets of this change as a map that maps the commit ID of the patch set to a RevisionInfo entity. Only set if the current revision is requested in which case it will only contain a key for the current revision or if all revisions are requested. A list of TrackingIdInfo entities describing references to external tracking systems.

Only set if tracking ids are requested. Whether the query would deliver more results if not limited. Only set on the last change that is returned. A list of ProblemInfo entities describing potential problems with this change. Only set if CHECK is set. ID of the submission of this change. Only set if the status is MERGED. This ID is equal to the numeric ID of the change that triggered the submission. The callers must not rely on the format of the submission ID. The numeric Change-Id of the change that this change was cherry-picked from.

Only set if the cherry-pick has been done through the Gerrit REST API and not if a cherry-picked commit was pushed. The patchset number of the change that this change was cherry-picked from. Whether the change contains conflicts. If true , some of the file contents of the change contain git conflict markers to indicate the conflicts. Only set if this change info is returned in response to a request that creates a new change or patch set and conflicts are allowed.

In particular this field is only populated if the change info is returned by one of the following REST endpoints: Create Change , Create Merge Patch Set For Change , Cherry Pick Revision , Cherry Pick Commit , Rebase Change.

The commit message of the change. Comment lines beginning with will be removed. If a change with this Change-Id already exists for same repository and branch, the request is rejected since Change-Ids must be unique per repository and branch.

The topic to which this change belongs. A {change-id} that identifies the base change for a create change operation. A digit hex SHA-1 of the commit which will be the parent commit of the newly created change. If set, it must be a merged commit on the destination branch. Allow creating a new branch when set to true. Using this option is only possible for non-merge commits if the merge field is not set. Map with key-value pairs that are forwarded as options to the commit validation listeners e.

can be used to skip certain validations. Which validation options are supported depends on the installed commit validation listeners. Please refer to the documentation of the installed plugins to learn whether they support validation options. Unknown validation options are silently ignored. The detail of a merge commit as a MergeInput entity. The detail of a patch to be applied as an ApplyPatchInput entity.

The caller needs "Forge Author" permission when using this field. The ChangeMessageInfo entity contains information about a message attached to a change. Author of the message as an AccountInfo entity. Unset if written by the Gerrit system. Real author of the message as an AccountInfo entity. Set if the message was posted on behalf of another user.

The text left by the user or Gerrit system. All accounts, used in message, can be found in accountsInMessage field. The CherryPickInput entity contains information for cherry-picking a change to a new branch. Commit message for the cherry-pick change. If not set, the commit message of the cherry-picked commit is used. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the cherry-pick. If true , carries reviewers and ccs over from original change to newly created one.

If true , the cherry-pick uses content merge and succeeds also if there are conflicts. If there are conflicts the file contents of the created change contain git conflict markers to indicate the conflicts. If there are conflicts the cherry-pick change is marked as work-in-progress. The topic of the created cherry-picked change. If not set, the default depends on the source. Otherwise, if the source change has no topic, or the source is a commit, the created change will have no topic.

If the change already exists, the topic will not change if not set. If set, the topic will be overridden. If true , the cherry-pick succeeds also if the created commit will be empty.

If false , a cherry-pick that would create an empty commit fails without creating the commit. The patch set number for the comment; only set in contexts where comments may be returned for multiple patch sets. The file path for which the inline comment was done. Not set if returned in a map where the key is the file path. The side on which the comment was added. Allowed values are REVISION and PARENT.

If not set, the default is REVISION. The 1-based parent number. When not set the comment is for the auto-merge tree. The number of the line for which the comment was done.

If range is set, this equals the end line of the range. The range of the comment as a CommentRange entity. The timestamp of when this comment was written. The author of the message as an AccountInfo entity. Unset for draft comments, assumed to be the calling user. Whether or not the comment must be addressed by the user. The state of resolution of a comment thread is stored in the last comment in that thread chronologically.

Available with the list change comments endpoint. Contains the id of the change message that this comment is linked to. Hex commit SHA-1 40 characters string of the commit of the patchset to which this comment applies.

A list of ContextLine containing the lines of the source file where the comment was written. Available only if the "enable-context" parameter see List Change Comments is set. Mime type of the file where the comment is written. The URL encoded UUID of the comment if an existing draft comment should be updated.

The file path for which the inline comment should be added. The side on which the comment should be added. The number of the line for which the comment should be added. If neither line nor range is set, a file comment is added. The timestamp of this comment. Accepted but ignored. The comment message.

If not set and an existing draft comment is updated, the existing draft comment is deleted. Value of the tag field. Only allowed on draft comment inputs; for published comments, use the tag field in ReviewInput. The start position is inclusive and the end position is exclusive.

The ContextLine entity contains the line number and line text of a single line of the source file content. The commit ID. Not set if included in a RevisionInfo entity that is contained in a map which has the commit ID as key. The parent commits of this commit as a list of CommitInfo entities.

In each parent only the commit and subject fields are populated. The author of the commit as a GitPersonInfo entity. The committer of the commit as a GitPersonInfo entity. Links to the patch set in external sites as a list of WebLinkInfo entities.

Links to the commit in external sites for resolving conflicts as a list of WebLinkInfo entities. The CommitMessageInput entity contains information for changing the commit message of a change. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the commit message was updated.

If not set, the default is OWNER for WIP changes and ALL otherwise. The DeleteChangeMessageInput entity contains the options for deleting a change message. The reason why the change message should be deleted.

The reason why the comment should be deleted. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the reviewer is deleted. The label for which the vote should be deleted. If set, must match the label in the URL. Notify handling that defines to whom email notifications should be sent after the vote is deleted. If set to true, ignore all automatic attention set rules described in the attention set. When not set, the default is false.

The DiffContent entity contains information about the content differences in a file. only present when the intraline parameter is set and the DiffContent is a replace, i. both a and b are present. Text sections deleted from side A as a DiffIntralineInfo entity. Text sections inserted in side B as a DiffIntralineInfo entity. count of lines skipped on both sides when the file is too large to include all common lines.

Set to true if the region is common according to the requested ignore-whitespace parameter, but a and b contain differing amounts of whitespace. When present and true a and b are used instead of ab. The content type of the file. For regular files the value is the file mime type e. Links to the file in external sites as a list of WebLinkInfo entries. Meta information about the file on side A as a DiffFileMetaInfo entity. Meta information about the file on side B as a DiffFileMetaInfo entity.

The type of change ADDED , MODIFIED , DELETED , RENAMED COPIED , REWRITE. only set when the intraline parameter was specified in the request. The content differences in the file as a list of DiffContent entities. Links to the file diff in external sites as a list of DiffWebLinkInfo entries.

Links to edit the file in external sites as a list of WebLinkInfo entries. The start of the edits is from the beginning of the related diff content lines. If the list is empty, the entire DiffContent should be considered as unedited. Note that the implied newline character at the end of each line is included in the length calculation, and thus it is possible for the edits to span newlines. The EditFileInfo entity contains additional information of a file within a change edit.

Links to the diff info in external sites as a list of WebLinkInfo entities. Information about how to fetch this patch set. The files of the change edit as a map that maps the file names to FileInfo entities. The FetchInfo entity contains information about how to fetch a patch set via a certain protocol. The download commands for this patch set as a map that maps the command names to the commands.

Only set if download commands are requested. Number of inserted lines. Not set for binary files or if no lines were inserted. An empty last line is not included in the count and hence this number can differ by one from details provided in DiffInfo.

Number of deleted lines. Not set for binary files or if no lines were deleted. File mode in octal e. The first three digits indicate the file type and the last three digits contain the file permission bits. For added files, this field will not be present. For deleted files, this field will not be present. The FixInput entity contains options for fixing commits using the fix change endpoint. If true, delete patch sets from the database if they refer to missing commit options.

If set, check that the change is merged into the destination branch as this exact SHA If not, insert a new patch set referring to this commit. The UUID of the suggested fix. A list of FixReplacementInfo entities indicating how the content of one or several files should be modified. Within a file, they should refer to non-overlapping regions. The FixReplacementInfo entity describes how the content of a file should be replaced by another content.

The path of the file which should be modified. Any file in the repository may be modified. References to the header lines will result in errors when the fix is applied. A CommentRange indicating which content of the file should be replaced. Lines in the file are assumed to be separated by the line feed character.

The timestamp of when this identity was constructed. The IncludedInInfo entity contains information about the branches a change was merged into and tags it was tagged with. The list of branches this change was merged into. The list of tags this change was tagged with. A map that maps a name to a list of external systems that include this change, e.

a list of servers on which this change is deployed. The LabelInfo entity contains information about a label on a change, always corresponding to the current patch set.

Whether the label is optional. One user who approved this label on the change voted the maximum value as an AccountInfo entity. com has six indicators which you can adjust in your settings.

If multiple indicators are selected a signal is only generated when both satisfy each individual algo respectively. For example if both RSI and CCI indicators are selected then both require identical SELL signals for OptionRobot. com to place a SELL trade in your linked broker. Also vice-versa, if any two indicators are selected then both have to be BUY signals for OptionRobot.

com to place a BUT trade. If any of multiple indicator selections have different signals BUY or SELL then no trade is executed. Market Direction Just as the name implies, this indicator looks at overall trends in the market. Is it a time for Puts or Calls? The Robot will determine this via the Trend Indicator. Relative Strength Index This indicator stands for Relative Strength Index.

Simply put, when prices get too high, the majority will sell and when prices are cheap, people will buy. Williams Percentage The Williams indicator is what I would call an RSI indicator simplified. It grabs extreme over, or undersold areas and attacks them, normally in short positions.

Please check back soon for future events, and sign up to receive invitations to our events and briefings. December 1, Speaker Series on California's Future — Virtual Event.

November 30, Virtual Event. November 18, Annual Water Conference — In-Person and Online. We believe in the power of good information to build a brighter future for California. Help support our mission.

Mark Baldassare , Dean Bonner , Rachel Lawler , and Deja Thomas. Supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Miller Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation. California voters have now received their mail ballots, and the November 8 general election has entered its final stage. Amid rising prices and economic uncertainty—as well as deep partisan divisions over social and political issues—Californians are processing a great deal of information to help them choose state constitutional officers and state legislators and to make policy decisions about state propositions.

The midterm election also features a closely divided Congress, with the likelihood that a few races in California may determine which party controls the US House. These are among the key findings of a statewide survey on state and national issues conducted from October 14 to 23 by the Public Policy Institute of California:. Today, there is a wide partisan divide: seven in ten Democrats are optimistic about the direction of the state, while 91 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents are pessimistic.

Californians are much more pessimistic about the direction of the country than they are about the direction of the state. Majorities across all demographic groups and partisan groups, as well as across regions, are pessimistic about the direction of the United States. A wide partisan divide exists: most Democrats and independents say their financial situation is about the same as a year ago, while solid majorities of Republicans say they are worse off.

Regionally, about half in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles say they are about the same, while half in the Central Valley say they are worse off; residents elsewhere are divided between being worse off and the same. The shares saying they are worse off decline as educational attainment increases.

Strong majorities across partisan groups feel negatively, but Republicans and independents are much more likely than Democrats to say the economy is in poor shape.

Today, majorities across partisan, demographic, and regional groups say they are following news about the gubernatorial election either very or fairly closely. In the upcoming November 8 election, there will be seven state propositions for voters. Due to time constraints, our survey only asked about three ballot measures: Propositions 26, 27, and For each, we read the proposition number, ballot, and ballot label. Two of the state ballot measures were also included in the September survey Propositions 27 and 30 , while Proposition 26 was not.

This measure would allow in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, requiring that racetracks and casinos offering sports betting make certain payments to the state to support state regulatory costs. It also allows roulette and dice games at tribal casinos and adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws. Fewer than half of likely voters say the outcome of each of these state propositions is very important to them.

Today, 21 percent of likely voters say the outcome of Prop 26 is very important, 31 percent say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important, and 42 percent say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important. Today, when it comes to the importance of the outcome of Prop 26, one in four or fewer across partisan groups say it is very important to them. About one in three across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important to them.

Fewer than half across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important to them. When asked how they would vote if the election for the US House of Representatives were held today, 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote for or lean toward the Democratic candidate, while 39 percent would vote for or lean toward the Republican candidate.

Democratic candidates are preferred by a point margin in Democratic-held districts, while Republican candidates are preferred by a point margin in Republican-held districts. Abortion is another prominent issue in this election.

When asked about the importance of abortion rights, 61 percent of likely voters say the issue is very important in determining their vote for Congress and another 20 percent say it is somewhat important; just 17 percent say it is not too or not at all important. With the controlling party in Congress hanging in the balance, 51 percent of likely voters say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress this year; another 29 percent are somewhat enthusiastic while 19 percent are either not too or not at all enthusiastic.

Today, Democrats and Republicans have about equal levels of enthusiasm, while independents are much less likely to be extremely or very enthusiastic.

As Californians prepare to vote in the upcoming midterm election, fewer than half of adults and likely voters are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States—and few are very satisfied. Satisfaction was higher in our February survey when 53 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters were satisfied with democracy in America.

Today, half of Democrats and about four in ten independents are satisfied, compared to about one in five Republicans. Notably, four in ten Republicans are not at all satisfied. In addition to the lack of satisfaction with the way democracy is working, Californians are divided about whether Americans of different political positions can still come together and work out their differences. Forty-nine percent are optimistic, while 46 percent are pessimistic.

Today, in a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, about four in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents are optimistic that Americans of different political views will be able to come together. Notably, in , half or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups were optimistic. Today, about eight in ten Democrats—compared to about half of independents and about one in ten Republicans—approve of Governor Newsom.

Across demographic groups, about half or more approve of how Governor Newsom is handling his job. Approval of Congress among adults has been below 40 percent for all of after seeing a brief run above 40 percent for all of Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress. Fewer than half across regions and demographic groups approve of Congress. Approval in March was at 44 percent for adults and 39 percent for likely voters.

Across demographic groups, about half or more approve among women, younger adults, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Views are similar across education and income groups, with just fewer than half approving.

Approval in March was at 41 percent for adults and 36 percent for likely voters. Across regions, approval reaches a majority only in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Across demographic groups, approval reaches a majority only among African Americans. This map highlights the five geographic regions for which we present results; these regions account for approximately 90 percent of the state population.

Residents of other geographic areas in gray are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately. The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. Coauthors of this report include survey analyst Deja Thomas, who was the project manager for this survey; associate survey director and research fellow Dean Bonner; and survey analyst Rachel Lawler.

The Californians and Their Government survey is supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Findings in this report are based on a survey of 1, California adult residents, including 1, interviewed on cell phones and interviewed on landline telephones.

The sample included respondents reached by calling back respondents who had previously completed an interview in PPIC Statewide Surveys in the last six months. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete.

Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from October 14—23, Cell phone interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of cell phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California.

All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection. After a cell phone user was reached, the interviewer verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey e.

Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement to help defray the cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both cell phone and landline service in the household.

Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample RBS of landline phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection. For both cell phones and landlines, telephone numbers were called as many as eight times.

When no contact with an individual was made, calls to a number were limited to six. Also, to increase our ability to interview Asian American adults, we made up to three additional calls to phone numbers estimated by Survey Sampling International as likely to be associated with Asian American individuals.

Accent on Languages, Inc. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt Associates used state-level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics—which used data from the National Health Interview Survey NHIS and the ACS. The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of registered voters in our sample to party registration statewide.

The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3. This means that 95 times out of , the results will be within 3. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: for the 1, registered voters, the sampling error is ±4. For the sampling errors of additional subgroups, please see the table at the end of this section.

Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing. We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately.

We also present results for congressional districts currently held by Democrats or Republicans, based on residential zip code and party of the local US House member. We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and no party preference or decline-to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not large enough for separate analysis. We also analyze the responses of likely voters—so designated per their responses to survey questions about voter registration, previous election participation, intentions to vote this year, attention to election news, and current interest in politics.

The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to due to rounding. Additional details about our methodology can be found at www. pdf and are available upon request through surveys ppic. October 14—23, 1, California adult residents; 1, California likely voters English, Spanish. Margin of error ±3.

What existing contractual obligations are those? The Gerrit server may be configured to require a confirmation when adding a group as reviewer that has many members. Across demographic groups, approval reaches a majority only among African Americans. As response a BlameInfo entity is returned that describes the blame. The numeric Change-Id of the change that this change was cherry-picked from. The SubmittedTogetherInfo entity contains information about a collection of changes that would be submitted together.

Categories:

• Binary Options online
• Binary Options
• Forex
• Forex Brokers
• Forex Bitcoin