TheBear
At the Start
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,831
Scratch that. I was typing whilst half listening to the news. Could swear I heard them say that but no mention of it since which strikes me as odd
US Presidential election 2016
- Thread starter Warbler
- Start date
Scratch that. I was typing whilst half listening to the news. Could swear I heard them say that but no mention of it since which strikes me as odd
last word on subject. See my post above. Fling and marriage
not true. That's very speculative aboyt the dynamics in the caucus.
Think ukip or labour in recent elections or kinnock years. Polls vary to the genuine thought through decision. Time and again
I think quite frankly though that this is all bleedin obvious and didn't need much discussion. It's human nature. End of story . Thread is deeply boring anyway
could be very right about rubio
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
As some of the data is coming in now we get a better chance to see what's happened
In the first case the Republican turnout, 180,000, was their highest in history. Conventional wisdom always thought this favoured Trump, but 64% of them identified as 'evangelical christians' (I'm amazed they even canvass this, yet alone how) but this is signficantly up on previous Godist turnouts.
Indeed, one of the few things that the polls did get right was participation. Ironically Slim, it was questioning the accuracy of this that formed the basis of Steve Deace's rationale for supporting Cruz. He didn't believe these turnout figures would be achieved. We haven't got the Democrat figure in, but there is no reason to believe that when they're added to the 180,000 Republicans, they'll exceed the 300,000. It's always possible though with so many moving parts in an equation to still pick a winner for the reason you weren't relying on, done it before with horses, (but then I've also picked losers for the reasons I was relying on, but which ultimately proved not to be enough even if they were otherwise realised)
“So now we have FOX as well as CNN producing polls this week that show 300,000 Iowans are voting in the Iowa Caucuses, and therefore Trump with a double-digit lead. Allow me to put those projected turnout numbers in perspective:
–That’s about a 200% voter increase from the highest Iowa Caucus turnout ever back in 2008.
–The most voters we’ve had in a primary (which always has higher turnout) in Iowa this century is only 230,000. And our last U.S. Senate primary had only roughly 150,000 voters in 2014.
–There are actually 11,000 fewer registered Republicans in Iowa this January than in January 2015.
Given those facts, I simply do not believe the projected turnout models in these polls. ”
Indeed, Steve King, Iowan congressman and Cruz backer suggested his man needed turnout to be around 135,000 or lower to win.
My own suspicion was that Trump would see an erosion. I modelled 30% as a guess, which put him on 21% and pretty well tied with Cruz and Rubio a point or two behind (I got the bounce for Carson wrong, that never materialised). It's why I fancied a tricast on Cruz - Rubio - Trump, as a back up against the Rubio 25/1 (which you might point out would have lost!!!)
Trump's share of the vote fell (clearly) but quite possibly because of the number of Godists who participated in an attempt to see off the anti christ. Trump's total number of votes would have been enough to win all the previous caucuses. I'm not so sure this was down to "noisy Trumpers" swithcing, but quite probably they were simply overwhelmed by the demographics of Iowan evangelists out numerbing them on the day. His vote might not have been as soft as we thought it vulnerable to being, but it might have hit a ceiling beyond which it had little appeal
I have seen some figures today (though skimmed over them first time, not necessarily recognising their full significance) but they're out there in cyberspace somewhere, that breaksdown how the 64% evangelists voted and how the non-religious bloc voted (heaven knows how they get these figures? but let's assume they're genuine). If you extrapolate from them, you pretty well have your explanation
Two things happened
1: Record number of Republicans caucused (180,000) previous highest 120,000
2: Record percentage (and by extension record number) caucused identifying as evangelical christians 64%
High turnout damaged Trump - no one predicted that. The core argument for those trying to get Trump was disbelief of the turnouts forecast, which in all probability was actually higher than even the most optimistc projection
I think you might be able to argue that the person who has most to be concerned about is actually Cruz. He sunk a lot into this and had a tailor made constituency, yet only beats Trump by 4% and Rubio by a shade more. His brand of christianity won't play out quite so well in other states, albeit he might pick up momentum as they swing through the south. Trumps going to have to find a way of dealing with this against his own disbelief (albeit he's never admitted it), but he did pick up votes from evangelicals too. Cruz was significantly weaker amongst the non God voters than Trump was with the Godists, but in Iowa they're a minority.
It's a bit like a tennis player who holds his serve to love, but fails to break his opponent despite taking him to deuce. I still see Trump emerging as the winner on the right wing, but will that be enough? If you did a crude centre - right count, then it would be, but I'm not sure we're going to see the right wing drop down to a single candidate anytime soon (or quite possibly through the whole process). I also think its a bit dangerous to assume that all those showing a right wing preference will stay on the right wing once their man falters
I'm not sure I'd agree that Cruz is somewhat less repellant than Trump, but then its a moot point
Right recovered some of the data
The expected evangelical turnout was 47% (Selzer)
The previous highest was 56%
The actual turnout was 63% or 64% (depending on rounding)
Cruz 33% and Trump 21% amongst the God vote
The American media is seemingly exploring an angle to do with late deciders as their explanation, and there is plenty of merit in this at face value (it also gets the pollsters off the hook). At another level it makes sense. People are probably quite capable of making their mind up about Trump early. He's not exactly subtle. Trump confortably wins amongst those who decided a month ago or longer, but as you get towards the waiverers he struggles. This could be donw to his lack of a ground game, but you'd think it owes more to the fact that he polarises and people can pretty well adopt a pro or con position much earlier
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Now the dust has settled, I believe the foxy play for trading purposes would be a Lay Rubio in the Republican nominee market at 1.88. That's just too low; an over-exuberant reaction to Rubio's (admittedly good) showing in Iowa.
Not trying to ramp the price or anything, but I've climbed aboard at 1.8 with get-out target of 2.25
Not trying to ramp the price or anything, but I've climbed aboard at 1.8 with get-out target of 2.25
S
SlimChance
Guest
These are not the words of Slim Chance but the words of David Malinsky
Now that the first actual votes of the 2016 US Presidential Election cycle have been counted it really is “game on”, and it will be quite a game. There was a foundation laid here back on December 10, US Election 2016, and the Perils of Polls and in breaking down the Iowa results there is enough food for thought to fill a soup cauldron.
The gist of the earlier column, and last Wednesday’s follow-up that put a Ted Cruz ticket “In the Sights…” was that modern polling is an entirely different ballgame, the diminishing use of land-lines drastically changing the modeling, and with a genuine scramble going on across the organizations in terms of how to get it right. Major elections in Israel and Great Britain in recent years fell significantly from what the final polls were projecting, and I believe that may be the case throughout this cycle in the United States. As such, the final polls from the Republican side of the Iowa scrum now become a serious box score. These are sorted by date, those at the top being the freshest, but all of them within 12 days of the voting -
Cruz Trump Rubio
Selzer & Co. 23 28 15
Quinnipiac U. 24 31 17
Emerson College 26 27 22
Opinion Savvy 19 20 19
Public Policy Polling 23 31 14
Gravis Marketing 27 31 13
Marist College 25 32 18
Monmouth U. 23 30 16
American Research 26 33 11
CBS/YouGov 34 39 13
Fox News 23 34 12
NBC/WSJ/Marist 25 32 18
CNN 26 37 14
Final 28 24 23
Only two of the 13 were even within the margin of error in terms of the Cruz/Trump comparison, and only two within that margin on Trump/Rubio. There are a couple of key takeaways.
First, forgive the pollsters a little because the unusual mode of the Iowa caucus format has confounded them in the past, and it was made even more challenging because of Donald Trump entering the race, which brought a unique element into play. What they were being asked to do was rather difficult. But even with that…
Second, be extremely wary of those being driven by what I will call the “For-Profit Media”. I grouped those four at the bottom for best comparison. The networks have been having a field day with this so far, getting much higher ratings than usual for the pre-primary cycles, and as such there was a rather discomforting self-interest in play – the more that they could add fuel to the fires, the more that warmth would benefit their own bottom lines. The final polls from CBS, Fox, NBC and CNN were absurdly off the mark, enough so that you must be extremely careful with them, as long as Trump remains in the race.
As for the next wave anticipate a major market shift to Rubio, who will become a better than even-money favorite to win the Republican nomination. He did not need to win last night, merely be competitive, while also showing that there may not be a populist tsunami flooding the electorate, a story that was being presented over past months that may turn out to have largely been a media invention. In other words, at some point this may again become Politics as Usual.
Now that the first actual votes of the 2016 US Presidential Election cycle have been counted it really is “game on”, and it will be quite a game. There was a foundation laid here back on December 10, US Election 2016, and the Perils of Polls and in breaking down the Iowa results there is enough food for thought to fill a soup cauldron.
The gist of the earlier column, and last Wednesday’s follow-up that put a Ted Cruz ticket “In the Sights…” was that modern polling is an entirely different ballgame, the diminishing use of land-lines drastically changing the modeling, and with a genuine scramble going on across the organizations in terms of how to get it right. Major elections in Israel and Great Britain in recent years fell significantly from what the final polls were projecting, and I believe that may be the case throughout this cycle in the United States. As such, the final polls from the Republican side of the Iowa scrum now become a serious box score. These are sorted by date, those at the top being the freshest, but all of them within 12 days of the voting -
Cruz Trump Rubio
Selzer & Co. 23 28 15
Quinnipiac U. 24 31 17
Emerson College 26 27 22
Opinion Savvy 19 20 19
Public Policy Polling 23 31 14
Gravis Marketing 27 31 13
Marist College 25 32 18
Monmouth U. 23 30 16
American Research 26 33 11
CBS/YouGov 34 39 13
Fox News 23 34 12
NBC/WSJ/Marist 25 32 18
CNN 26 37 14
Final 28 24 23
Only two of the 13 were even within the margin of error in terms of the Cruz/Trump comparison, and only two within that margin on Trump/Rubio. There are a couple of key takeaways.
First, forgive the pollsters a little because the unusual mode of the Iowa caucus format has confounded them in the past, and it was made even more challenging because of Donald Trump entering the race, which brought a unique element into play. What they were being asked to do was rather difficult. But even with that…
Second, be extremely wary of those being driven by what I will call the “For-Profit Media”. I grouped those four at the bottom for best comparison. The networks have been having a field day with this so far, getting much higher ratings than usual for the pre-primary cycles, and as such there was a rather discomforting self-interest in play – the more that they could add fuel to the fires, the more that warmth would benefit their own bottom lines. The final polls from CBS, Fox, NBC and CNN were absurdly off the mark, enough so that you must be extremely careful with them, as long as Trump remains in the race.
As for the next wave anticipate a major market shift to Rubio, who will become a better than even-money favorite to win the Republican nomination. He did not need to win last night, merely be competitive, while also showing that there may not be a populist tsunami flooding the electorate, a story that was being presented over past months that may turn out to have largely been a media invention. In other words, at some point this may again become Politics as Usual.
Last edited:
Just to point out, Iowa is a state where mad pastors like Pat Robertson, defeat Vice Presidents, George H Bush (the much revered Reagan VP too). Robertson was destroyed at New Hampshire. It's a state that in the last two caucuses has chosen creationists like Rick Santorum and another preacher in Mike Huckerbee. That they've chosen another christian fundamentalist over someone who is widely suspected of being a non-believer is hardly one in the eye for people who think that perhaps a steroetype is in play is it? Quite the opposite
S
SlimChance
Guest
Are you saying Trump can still win?
You don't fool me, I reckon you're writing all this yourself
I'd have said timing becomes important now. We can anticipate a wave of candidates withdrawing. The sequence in which they withdraw probably becomes important as it forms something of a futures market.
It's too simplistic to say X withdraws and transfers to Y, but you can anticipate where the swell of their support might go. As that happens, new polls will be commissioned and published, and markets will form in response to these. As this happens further withdrawals become more likely as the opinion starts to lodge that X can't win, or is falling behind Y etc (albeit they normally require proof at the polls first)
Huckerbee and Santorum will pull out soon (well Huckerbee's already gone) but they should transfer to Cruz
Next up we will probably have Fiorina. She's believed to be canvassing a cabinet or VP nomination, logic says she'll endorse Rubio
One of Christie or Kasich will probably pull out after New Hampshire. I wouldn't be shocked to see Jeb get a small bounce off either, but will it be enough to keep his faltering campaign alive?. He too will need to make a decision but will wait until super Tuesday.
Of the right wingers Carson is supposed to be developing a media speaking career, and has a book planned etc He has the money to stay in, but is going to get a kicking in New Hampshire. Will his support flow to Cruz on the evangelical ticket, or Trump on the right wing ticket. I suspect most of it will go the former route
It leaves a field of Trump, Rubio, Cruz and Bush hanging on
I do wonder what it might take for the notoriously thin skinned Trump to pull out and shcok everyone? You sense that Jeb will hang in and roll with the punches, but I doubt Trump will be able to suffer too many defeats before he refuses to play any more, but what if he gets on a roll and starts winning? There's no good reason to think he's going to lose New Hampshire or South Carolina. There's a lot of things there which wouldn't apply to Iowa. He might be a bit more vulnerable in Nevada. Then we're into super Tuesday I think where mass media might be more of a factor
I'd have thought there will be betting opportunities spread across these states and candidates can't cover them all
Rubio has never really been scrutinised. There is a suspicion that he's a bit light weight. He's really quite inexperienced. Five years a Senator?
Yes, albeit 'can' and 'will' are different thresholds
I was never completely sold on Iowa, but if he did win there, we'd have proof that his vote was genuine. I think we've been left with as many question as answers as it turns out.
I don't think Iowa was ever something they were banking on, but it would have been a serious launchpad. If he fails in either New Hampshire or South Carolina then the answer has to be no. What if he wins one and is a close second in the other? Don't know, probably not.
I still think Trump will be the strongest of the right wing candidates (Carson and Cruz). Between the three of them, their votes add up to about 60%. The question therefore is will being the strongman of the right be enough to carry the nomination? It's too simplistic to expect that everyone who pulls out will serve their vote en-masse to the nearest compatiable alternative so we have to try and take some guesstimates on percentages
Somehow, Trump needs to knock Cruz out the race. I foresee four candidates going forward for the duration
In order
Rubio
Trump
Cruz
Bush
This is where a bit of horse trading and dealing might come into play. A Trump/ Cruz combo would probably stop the other two. I'm not sure a former Florida governor, and senator could form an easy to sell alliance. If Bush pulls out though (and most people think he will) the dynamic is shaken up a bit
Last edited:
S
SlimChance
Guest
Thanks for your replies Warbler. Two things to point out to you. I like this thread and I've liked reading your views on US Elections for a good 12 years now. I was posting Malinsky's thoughts on here and mirroring your answers on the forum he posts on. This was giving me an intriguing view of the landscape as both of you are highly opinionated. A few members on here are a bit insular and thought my motive was self promotion, Jesus wept.
You can see the other thread here:
http://pregame.com/pregame-forums/f/14/t/1370552.aspx?pi10417=16
I won't be linking to this forum again as its a scumbag organisation that rips off the poor.
You can see the other thread here:
http://pregame.com/pregame-forums/f/14/t/1370552.aspx?pi10417=16
I won't be linking to this forum again as its a scumbag organisation that rips off the poor.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Do you really want to keep running with this? Clearly you do; your last half-dozen posts -- in each one you have been referencing it. It's becoming tiresome.
I've tried to avoid being baited, but in your most recent post above you've succeeded in finally goading me into a reply, so here's the response in plain talking that you seem to be so desperately seeking:
Nobody has any objection to the re-publishing of third party opinion; it's when the poster manages to omit any acknowledgement of the original source of information that grates. To acknowledge an original author is accepted internet etiquette, and you're long enough in the tooth to know that.
On top of that, when Cruz won the caucus, you were very quick to post up a smug remark hinting that you yourself had called the result correctly when in fact it was Malinsky that had actually done so. Gloating is never an attractive trait, even less so when the gloating is built on plagiarism.
No more about it from my end; you're more than welcome to re-state your position but I won't be drawn further.
I'm sightly surprised by how much of it he agreed with
He's right to say that my Trump wins a bullying competition hasn't be tested yet because no one has tried to give it back. He's equally correct to say that the primary reason is because no one wants to risk alienating Trumps 30%. They're happy of course for someone else to open fire, but don't want to do so themselves. That doesn't of course mean that Trump doesn't still win this kind of street scrapping politics
Jeb Bush made one of the better observations of the campaign when he said that in order to win the White House you need to risk losing the nomination, but for all that, he hasn't really done it. I quite liked the BBC analogy of Jeb being the junior at school whose head Trump keeps pushing down the toilet and flushing on him
It kind of set me thinking that the other candidates have missed a trick here in trying to defend the soul of the party and use that as a cloak from which to attack Trump. Trump has pretty well be insulting their constituencies, or at least those demographics which they'd all hoped to reach into and convert. He's possibly made the Republican party unelectable. They've resisted doing similar to him because they'd all like a share of his core support. They don't want to be seen as picking with Trump for fear that his voting bloc interpret as an attack on them through extension.
What perhaps someone should have tried is chastising him for insulting the American people and calling him out in the name of the party. This would have positioned them as the defender of the party's reputation. Instead they've tended to frame Trump's bullying bombast through the prism of the personal insults aimed at them individually, rather than Americans generally. There was possibly a gap here to exploit, albeit it risked pushing Trump outside the party with all the potential ramifications of an independent run
In fairness to Carly, she went closer than anyone else when she said "I think the women of America clearly heard what Donald Trump said" and boy, didn't he look uncomfortable as she slapped him down.
S
SlimChance
Guest
Thanks Warbler. Interesting as always.
S
SlimChance
Guest
Does this now mean that I am limited in what I can post on the 'will win thread' because **** heads like you deem it inadmissible because it's not my work?
S
SlimChance
Guest
Let me go further Icebreaker, you sit in your house and arb your fivers but how dare you accuse me of anything. I've provided this forum with more honest unavailable information than anyone else could say was fair. Yet a jumped up **** like you thinks he calls the shots on me? **** OFF!
A few points
The day you know anything about the betting industry bar arbing come talk to me
The day you network with someone that's not arbing come talk to me
Other than that go **** youself you two bit ****
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Stop being ridiculous.
Making a leap between me calling you on your bs and telling you not to post anymore is just crazy. It's a free world; do what you want. Post, don't post; it's of no interest to me what you do or you don't do.
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
You have an over-inflated notion of the value of your "info" and of your own significance. Your information is gleaned from trawling the internet for crumbs, you are nothing more than an aggregator site re-mashing stuff available via the most basic google search to any of us, and then posting it up on here as if it were your own. Mate, you've never had original idea in your life; you wouldn't recognise an original idea if it slapped you in the face.
I dunno where you're getting the "arbing fivers" concept. How do you know my staking levels, and how do you know what manner of betting I engage in? Suffice to say, that my betting activity has provided a living for quite a number of years now, rather than you who is obliged to supplement any winnings with (since you brought up monetary figures) a minimum wage job with a bookie to make ends meet.
And, I like to think I am every bit as informed about the betting industry as you. I could tell you that I held an on-course bookmakers licence to practice at point-to-points and at Park Coursing during the 90's, but that would sound like one-upmanship. Dont be presumptious about everyone that you come across on forums.
I'll wrap it up with this, you won't bully me off of here like you have done with others. I'm a different proposition to those who were intimidated by you to stop posting and to meekly leave. You can leave the language and the name-calling, it's all water off a duck to me.
Let me try an angle here by way of hypothesis:
The first thing to note about the advocacy for the Cruz vote in Iowa is that it was largely (though not exclusively) based on work by Steve Deace. No problem with that. Central to the conclusion were a few things
1: The polls which were predicting a high turnout, were wrong.
2: Trumps expressed preference support as revealed by polling wouldn't turn out.
3: Smaller turnout favoured the established caucus goers and the existing networks of the politically active.
4: A large turnout would be indicative of people who hadn't participated previously, and by extension therefore more likely Trumpsters.
So this is the question you'd like to ask. If you were somehow armed with the information before the vote that Iowa's Republicans would generate a turnout higher than any previous one recorded (180,000) would you still have recommended Cruz at 6/4? I'd suggest that you probably wouldn't. Yet this is what happened, and Trump was defeated.
So how did this happen? and can we extrapolate anything from it going into New Hampshire?
Only about 10% of the qualified population caucus. To give it a UK context, think police commissioner elections. Did the fabled silent majority find their voice? Well it's not like these folk were lost to the political process. Iowans do vote in greater in numbers than 10% after all. Have those who normally vote but don't bother with the aggro of a caucus come out to oppose an anti christ candidate in greater numbers than new participants have been drawn into the process? If this process repeats in other states, then Trump, sitting on a series of commanding leads heavily odds on, might suddenly become vulnerable right across the board?
So what of New Hampshire?
In the first case the group who are perhaps most capable of organising a mass turn out by way edict are the Godists. They'll exist in New Hampshire too, but not on the same scale as they do in Iowa. Having said that, turnout is the key. You don't need a big mass movement to affect disengaged constituencies on small turnouts. If you can mobilise a minority you can still achieve a lot (I have no idea what sort of turnout an NH primary generates?)
Perhaps more pertinent though is the spectre of Pat Buchannan. Standing on a ticket of anti immigration (with a bit of Holocust thrown in for good measure) he managed 31% of the vote in 1992, and won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Trumps more charismatic than Buchannan, but then so is typhoid. Also the mood swing post 9/11 you'd assume would make an electorate with whom the sentiment had twice struck a chord in the 1990's even more receptive to the message. The final thing that would worry me is how the opposition might mobilise behind a stop Trump candidate. Kasich, Christie and Bush will all likely be hitting close to double figures. There ahs to be a limit to the size of the pool you could draw from. You suspect that those looking for a moderate alternative to mobilise behind won't find one for now, so is Cruz still over the odds at 7/1 if we see something of a repeat performance on another high turnout?. The evidence from Iowa if we're prepared to trust it, is that high turnout hurts Trump and is more indicative of opposition to him than support gathering.
My gut feeling is that Iowa won't repeat in New Hampshire. I suspect there's enough latent sentiment behind Trump already there, and no natural point to rally against him either. It's going to require three quite capable candidates who've been working the patch to collapse for Rubio to make significant inroads. And is a Texan evangelical really going to get traction there? South Carolina however, now there's somewhere which might be more vulnerable. Sadly there's no mature market for it yet, but if Rubio is going to breakthrough, it will need to come soon before the doubts are raised. Can he really run with form figures of 3, 3, 2, 2
The first thing to note about the advocacy for the Cruz vote in Iowa is that it was largely (though not exclusively) based on work by Steve Deace. No problem with that. Central to the conclusion were a few things
1: The polls which were predicting a high turnout, were wrong.
2: Trumps expressed preference support as revealed by polling wouldn't turn out.
3: Smaller turnout favoured the established caucus goers and the existing networks of the politically active.
4: A large turnout would be indicative of people who hadn't participated previously, and by extension therefore more likely Trumpsters.
So this is the question you'd like to ask. If you were somehow armed with the information before the vote that Iowa's Republicans would generate a turnout higher than any previous one recorded (180,000) would you still have recommended Cruz at 6/4? I'd suggest that you probably wouldn't. Yet this is what happened, and Trump was defeated.
So how did this happen? and can we extrapolate anything from it going into New Hampshire?
Only about 10% of the qualified population caucus. To give it a UK context, think police commissioner elections. Did the fabled silent majority find their voice? Well it's not like these folk were lost to the political process. Iowans do vote in greater in numbers than 10% after all. Have those who normally vote but don't bother with the aggro of a caucus come out to oppose an anti christ candidate in greater numbers than new participants have been drawn into the process? If this process repeats in other states, then Trump, sitting on a series of commanding leads heavily odds on, might suddenly become vulnerable right across the board?
So what of New Hampshire?
In the first case the group who are perhaps most capable of organising a mass turn out by way edict are the Godists. They'll exist in New Hampshire too, but not on the same scale as they do in Iowa. Having said that, turnout is the key. You don't need a big mass movement to affect disengaged constituencies on small turnouts. If you can mobilise a minority you can still achieve a lot (I have no idea what sort of turnout an NH primary generates?)
Perhaps more pertinent though is the spectre of Pat Buchannan. Standing on a ticket of anti immigration (with a bit of Holocust thrown in for good measure) he managed 31% of the vote in 1992, and won the New Hampshire primary in 1996. Trumps more charismatic than Buchannan, but then so is typhoid. Also the mood swing post 9/11 you'd assume would make an electorate with whom the sentiment had twice struck a chord in the 1990's even more receptive to the message. The final thing that would worry me is how the opposition might mobilise behind a stop Trump candidate. Kasich, Christie and Bush will all likely be hitting close to double figures. There ahs to be a limit to the size of the pool you could draw from. You suspect that those looking for a moderate alternative to mobilise behind won't find one for now, so is Cruz still over the odds at 7/1 if we see something of a repeat performance on another high turnout?. The evidence from Iowa if we're prepared to trust it, is that high turnout hurts Trump and is more indicative of opposition to him than support gathering.
My gut feeling is that Iowa won't repeat in New Hampshire. I suspect there's enough latent sentiment behind Trump already there, and no natural point to rally against him either. It's going to require three quite capable candidates who've been working the patch to collapse for Rubio to make significant inroads. And is a Texan evangelical really going to get traction there? South Carolina however, now there's somewhere which might be more vulnerable. Sadly there's no mature market for it yet, but if Rubio is going to breakthrough, it will need to come soon before the doubts are raised. Can he really run with form figures of 3, 3, 2, 2
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Calm down lads, it's only a forum. But a forum that needs to keep every contributor that we have.
S
SlimChance
Guest
You've often mentioned your stakes on the forum and arbing offers for €5 profit. My issue with you is accusing me of posting the information as my own when its blatantly obvious to everyone that its not my own words. As for me chasing people off the forum, god bless us. I barely post on here anymore. If all of this is such water off a ducks back then you wouldn't have made the initial post.
Last edited:
S
SlimChance
Guest
What a load of bollocks. Go read the will win thread, a thread which you viewed and contributed too more than most. How quickly eaten bread is forgotten. The day you contribute half as much as I have to the forum then come and call me out otherwise get back in your box.
Last edited:
In today's news, Rand Paul drops out, and in the last hour Rick Santorum joins him. Santorum was expected and his miniscule support will probably go to Cruz. Paul's support is much more complicated. My own suspicion is that most of it will go to Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). Of those that stay within the GOP umbrella, I'd expect Cruz to pick up most, with Rubio getting a few, and Trump perhaps getting a small share too.
Talking of Trump, he's now appealing for a re-run of Iowa because of Cruz's dirty tricks (perhaps he should make North Dakota pay for it?, or lock down the caucus room until he's worked the whole thing out). At one level the self-styled 'winner' looks like a bad loser, but it also ensures that Cruz and some of his slippery tactics remain in the headlines, as well as shore up his own core which should eb enough in New Hampshire.
Cruz has apologised, and Carson (the victim) has also criticised Cruz (another man of God of course) for his dishonesty. But this is politics Donald, if you can't handle the nasty side, go back to real estate - who's he trying to kid! Donald knows there's no chance of re run, so he's just trying to keep Rubio out the headlines and help create a narrative that Cruz is untrustworthy
So far betting purposes I thought I'd turn to the VP market instead
5/2 John Kasich - Compelling geopgraphic choice, covers key swing states of Ohio, and possibly Pennsylvania. Might get traction in New Hampshire too. Already advised at 8/1, if you've got him in the book well done
4/1 Marco Rubio - really? 20% accounted for by someone who could well win the nomination. I sniff an opportunity. Apart from anything, if he isn't the nominee, whose VP could he be? Trumps? I doubt it. Rubio will still have aspirations for 2020, does he want to risk the baggage that might come with being Trump's Veep? Hell, association with that White House could ruin a career
4/1 Nikki Haley - The fly in the ointment. She might benefit for not being in this current lousy field, and any negative attachments, but otherwise I don't know. Does she have the heavy experience? Can the GOP really run 2 candidates from minority backgrounds? have they ever done so? She does have a bit of Sarah Palin written all over her. These types of televisual candidates often generate short term poll bounces, but this quickly evaporate if they're suspected of being a bit lightweight. Due dillgence needed, and an open mind. There is a foreseeable experience deficit in the GOP ticket which compares poorly to a Clinton ticket. They might want to address this with someone more seasoned, or they might simply take the counter view recognising they can't match Clinton in this area, and deliberately field fresh young blood
8/1 Chris Christie - I doubt it. Don't see what he brings
10/1 Ted Cruz - One of the jobs of the VP is to help smooth the Washinton machinary. Cruz is hated, and possibly the worst person imaginable. He only gets the gig as a part of any deal. He couldn't be anyone's choice. The only person who might need to deal with him is Trump
12/1 Carly Fiorina - There might be some value here. In the last month in particular she's targetted Hillary Clinton, describing herself as the candidate Hillary would hate to face. I think so too. She's consistently been amongst the best debaters and lends gender balance to a ticket which the GOP might well need to negate Hillary a bit. She also lends a bit of business credibility, but has an experience deficit which has to be a major concern. She won't deliver California, but might be value as an attack dog to drag Hillary into an unedifying cat fight. Likely to be considered from a campaigners view point, but could struggle operationally once in Washington
16/1 Sarah Palin - I can't imagine that anyone who has previously failed, and indeed been held to be responsible for that failure could ever be considered. Hell she couldn't even serve out a term in Alaska. No freaking chance. She's aligned to Trump, and he might be unpredictable, but he ain't stupid
20/1 Paul Ryan, Rob Portman and Lindsey Graham - I can't throw much light on these other than Graham was knocked out early. No angle from me
25/1 Mitt Romney - Oh come on
25/1 Jeb Bush - Bush would probably be an asset to a back room team working the corridors once in power, but he'd be a handicap to any campaign on evidence to date. In any event, whose Veep could he be? Rubio's? I doubt it. I don't think having two Floridans is going to work, and in any event, Rubio would reckon he could carry the sunshine state without having introduce a raincloud. Trump would just flush him down the toilet, and would he really fancy being Cruz's bitch. Again, I can only see him in play as part of a deal to step down, but right now you'd reckon no nominee need find they have to make that deal. They can probably allow him to run his course and drop out
On the Democrat side I think we can consider taking a punt on Tim Kaine at 10/1. Call it a hunch. I don't see how Hillary can take Bernie Sanders very easily. It's alright saying that Bernie is popular with young voters and she ain't. What they really disguises though is that Bernie's policies are popular. If he's on her ticket he won't be able to offer that anymore and you somehow suspect his popularity will start to disappear. Elizabeth Warren unbalances the ticket gender wise, a risk they don't need to take. Julian Castro might be favourite but this is based on a bit of Clinton double speak I reckon. If he's ultimately seen to be a poor imitation of Rubio, he'll become a liability. Again a risk they don't need to take
You probably don't need much imagination to see that the Democrats are going to go big on experience. Kaine is a former governor of Virginia which doesn't do his prospects any harm, and now a senator (albeit not necessarily that experienced). If they're facing anyone of Rubio, Trump, or God forbid Cruz, there is something of an experience deficit there. Are you really ready for the Oval office after one term in the Senate, without having been a state governor to bolster this qualification? I can see that kaine has appeal over any of the prospective Republican nominees
Talking of Trump, he's now appealing for a re-run of Iowa because of Cruz's dirty tricks (perhaps he should make North Dakota pay for it?, or lock down the caucus room until he's worked the whole thing out). At one level the self-styled 'winner' looks like a bad loser, but it also ensures that Cruz and some of his slippery tactics remain in the headlines, as well as shore up his own core which should eb enough in New Hampshire.
Cruz has apologised, and Carson (the victim) has also criticised Cruz (another man of God of course) for his dishonesty. But this is politics Donald, if you can't handle the nasty side, go back to real estate - who's he trying to kid! Donald knows there's no chance of re run, so he's just trying to keep Rubio out the headlines and help create a narrative that Cruz is untrustworthy
So far betting purposes I thought I'd turn to the VP market instead
5/2 John Kasich - Compelling geopgraphic choice, covers key swing states of Ohio, and possibly Pennsylvania. Might get traction in New Hampshire too. Already advised at 8/1, if you've got him in the book well done
4/1 Marco Rubio - really? 20% accounted for by someone who could well win the nomination. I sniff an opportunity. Apart from anything, if he isn't the nominee, whose VP could he be? Trumps? I doubt it. Rubio will still have aspirations for 2020, does he want to risk the baggage that might come with being Trump's Veep? Hell, association with that White House could ruin a career
4/1 Nikki Haley - The fly in the ointment. She might benefit for not being in this current lousy field, and any negative attachments, but otherwise I don't know. Does she have the heavy experience? Can the GOP really run 2 candidates from minority backgrounds? have they ever done so? She does have a bit of Sarah Palin written all over her. These types of televisual candidates often generate short term poll bounces, but this quickly evaporate if they're suspected of being a bit lightweight. Due dillgence needed, and an open mind. There is a foreseeable experience deficit in the GOP ticket which compares poorly to a Clinton ticket. They might want to address this with someone more seasoned, or they might simply take the counter view recognising they can't match Clinton in this area, and deliberately field fresh young blood
8/1 Chris Christie - I doubt it. Don't see what he brings
10/1 Ted Cruz - One of the jobs of the VP is to help smooth the Washinton machinary. Cruz is hated, and possibly the worst person imaginable. He only gets the gig as a part of any deal. He couldn't be anyone's choice. The only person who might need to deal with him is Trump
12/1 Carly Fiorina - There might be some value here. In the last month in particular she's targetted Hillary Clinton, describing herself as the candidate Hillary would hate to face. I think so too. She's consistently been amongst the best debaters and lends gender balance to a ticket which the GOP might well need to negate Hillary a bit. She also lends a bit of business credibility, but has an experience deficit which has to be a major concern. She won't deliver California, but might be value as an attack dog to drag Hillary into an unedifying cat fight. Likely to be considered from a campaigners view point, but could struggle operationally once in Washington
16/1 Sarah Palin - I can't imagine that anyone who has previously failed, and indeed been held to be responsible for that failure could ever be considered. Hell she couldn't even serve out a term in Alaska. No freaking chance. She's aligned to Trump, and he might be unpredictable, but he ain't stupid
20/1 Paul Ryan, Rob Portman and Lindsey Graham - I can't throw much light on these other than Graham was knocked out early. No angle from me
25/1 Mitt Romney - Oh come on
25/1 Jeb Bush - Bush would probably be an asset to a back room team working the corridors once in power, but he'd be a handicap to any campaign on evidence to date. In any event, whose Veep could he be? Rubio's? I doubt it. I don't think having two Floridans is going to work, and in any event, Rubio would reckon he could carry the sunshine state without having introduce a raincloud. Trump would just flush him down the toilet, and would he really fancy being Cruz's bitch. Again, I can only see him in play as part of a deal to step down, but right now you'd reckon no nominee need find they have to make that deal. They can probably allow him to run his course and drop out
On the Democrat side I think we can consider taking a punt on Tim Kaine at 10/1. Call it a hunch. I don't see how Hillary can take Bernie Sanders very easily. It's alright saying that Bernie is popular with young voters and she ain't. What they really disguises though is that Bernie's policies are popular. If he's on her ticket he won't be able to offer that anymore and you somehow suspect his popularity will start to disappear. Elizabeth Warren unbalances the ticket gender wise, a risk they don't need to take. Julian Castro might be favourite but this is based on a bit of Clinton double speak I reckon. If he's ultimately seen to be a poor imitation of Rubio, he'll become a liability. Again a risk they don't need to take
You probably don't need much imagination to see that the Democrats are going to go big on experience. Kaine is a former governor of Virginia which doesn't do his prospects any harm, and now a senator (albeit not necessarily that experienced). If they're facing anyone of Rubio, Trump, or God forbid Cruz, there is something of an experience deficit there. Are you really ready for the Oval office after one term in the Senate, without having been a state governor to bolster this qualification? I can see that kaine has appeal over any of the prospective Republican nominees
Last edited: