US Presidential election 2016

To both you, I ask because some lunatic has €700 up at 23 on Betfair and there is 25/1 out there. Someone wants to be on. Mind you someone wants the same amount of Sandsrs to be president at 39/1!
 
Last edited:
Some Yank "bridge jumper", no doubt. Funny people, they are.
Probably the keeness to bet him derives from that poll a couple of days ago ......................

"Morning Consult asked Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters who the real estate magnate should pick and came up with this result:
• Ben Carson 11%
• Ted Cruz 9%
• Marco Rubio 9%
• John Kasich 8%
• Chris Christie 8%
• Jeb Bush 4%
Nearly 40% of respondents said they didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion. Two percent picked Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and star on ABC's Shark Tank".
 
icebreaker said:
He has just officially withdrawn from the Republican nomination race.
Click to expand...

Has he? I thought there was some ambiguity in what he'd said? I know he said he wouldn't participate in tomorrows debate, and I think he said something about putting his campaign into a holding position, but has he withdrawn (or suspended to use the vernacular)
 
Warbler said:
Has he? I thought there was some ambiguity in what he'd said?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct.
i was going on a ticker-tape flash across the bottom of the screen which was univocal about a withdrawal; when the 9:00 news came on fifteen mins later the story had been adjusted to what you say above.
 
icebreaker said:
Some Yank "bridge jumper", no doubt. Funny people, they are.
Probably the keeness to bet him derives from that poll a couple of days ago ......................

"Morning Consult asked Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters who the real estate magnate should pick and came up with this result:
• Ben Carson 11%
• Ted Cruz 9%
• Marco Rubio 9%
• John Kasich 8%
• Chris Christie 8%
• Jeb Bush 4%
Nearly 40% of respondents said they didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion. Two percent picked Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and star on ABC's Shark Tank".
Click to expand...

You could be right but It's very hard for a yank to bet into Betfair given its illegal. I think this is worth a few moments consideration. People don't tend to throw away €700.
 
icebreaker said:
Yes, you are correct.
i was going on a ticker-tape flash across the bottom of the screen which was univocal about a withdrawal; when the 9:00 news came on fifteen mins later the story had been adjusted to what you say above.
Click to expand...

I think that by scaling his campaing down he's still allowed to raise money. There has long been an allegation that Carson is using the whole circus to promote his book. Not sure how it works, but I think his SuperPAC can buy his book using funds raised and then give it away as a campaign donation (something like that).
 
SlimChance said:
You could be right but It's very hard for a yank to bet into Betfair given its illegal. I think this is worth a few moments consideration. People don't tend to throw away €700.
Click to expand...

Recognising that Trump is a loose canon, and is more than capable of doing and saying things that should sink any normal campaign, I can't for the life of me see the political argument for Carson anymore. There was a time when he had a polling presence when the possibility of a pact might have existed, but that's gone. Carson has no geographic territory to bring to the table. He has no experience of doing the deals in the corridors of congress. His campaign has been soporific. The only argument is whether he can get the black vote, but that's out of reach for Trump against the weapons at the Democrats disposal. You might just as well try and deploy some celebrities to do that for you

Kasich is the obvious strategic choice for all of them. Rubio wouldn't be without his merits either (see how he gets on in Florida in the primary though). Trump is a notorious grudge bearer though. If he takes a VP from the current field it'll be because he feels he has to I reckon, rather than something he's done through choice. If he feels he has to, it'll be a cyncial decision based around who can deliver me a key swing state
 
Fox News are apparently abandoning Rubio

That'll wrong foot Megyn Kelly for tonights debate

Not sure who they support now though?

Just wanted to archive this article actually before I forget where it came from, as it might become helpful in the future to understanding how the GOP got themselves into this mess by embracing the Dixiecrats of the 1950's and 60's

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7?r=US&IR=T
 
Last edited:
Rule 40(b) was something I noted the other day. I think you need a 75% majority to change it (not sure who the college is on that?) but I assume its the GOP hierarchy and in that case they'll find a way of bending it to get Rubio under the bar. Whether or not its open to a legal challenge heaven only knows? I suspect it isn't, but expect Trump to use it as a way of feeding the 'outsider' narrative against the military industrial complex and other self serving relationships

Pretty risible stuff from Romeny just now incidentally. If that's the best the GOP can muster after a month of backroom deal making and strategy formulation then the American people need to abandon them. Things move quickly in these sorts of environments and very often the broken institutions of the established order are the last to respond.

The American people need to see Hillary Clinton for what she is going to be in three months time, their last line of defence. The onus is on them now to take matters into their own hands and mobilise to stop Trump instead of looking to these decaying institutions
 
Last edited:
t a bigger scale isn't this what's wrong with politics? The will of the people is that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee but the Republican Party through Mitt Romney say he's not fit. The people rejected Mitt Romney in 2012 so why should they care now about him getting up on his soap box?

In 2009 the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty when it was put to them through a referendum. Rather than accepting the people's wishes the government of the day put the same refferendun to the people in just over a year later in 2010.

This is the sort of politics that creates this ground swell of anti establishment voters. The establishment doesn't want a democracy, it pulls the strings and expects the puppets to do what it wants. I would like Trump to win if only to show that the ballot box is still a weapon of the common man.
 
True; how very right you are. It's all a sham, this democracy lark is just a veneer -- the elite still run things.



"The people who vote don't decide who wins an election; the people who count the votes do."
Josef Stalin.
:)
 
icebreaker said:
True; how very right you are. It's all a sham, this democracy lark is just a veneer -- the elite still run things.



"The people who vote don't decide who wins an election; the people who count the votes do."
Josef Stalin.
:)
Click to expand...

FFS :lol:

I've never heard that quote before. Did he really say that?
 
Warbler said:
Pretty risible stuff from Romeny just now incidentally.
Click to expand...
Romney now seems to be calling for all of the non-Trump candidates to remain in the race rather than the previous wish for most of them to drop out so that the anti-Trump vote would consolidate around the one remaining candidate. That would be a definite shift in policy.
Maybe the reason for this change of strategy is the hope that Trump might not have a majority of delegates onside come November and thus a brokered deal could be made to foist Cruz or Rubio as the official nominee? Weird stuff. It eeally suggests that the GOP now believes that Trump would win a one-to-one contest with Cruz or Rubio in the Primaries.
 
Is there not a chance of riots if there is a brokered convention, albeit the former being a million to one shot.
 
Indeed, I couldn't imagine the average Trump voters taking kindly to their man being shafted even though he wins the most votes/delegates.
What might be more likely is a serious fracturing of the Republican Party into factions with various names and admins.
 
icebreaker said:
Maybe the reason for this change of strategy is the hope that Trump might not have a majority of delegates onside come November and thus a brokered deal could be made to foist Cruz or Rubio as the official nominee? Weird stuff.
Click to expand...

This scenario has been sketched out already and there is a growing likelihood that its now the adopted game plan

There are a number of issues

In the first case Trump signed a pledge not to run a third party campaign and in return the GOP agreed to provide a level playing field and a fair fight. The GOP are widely held to be reneging on this. If Trump wins a plurality of the vote, and the convention then swindle him out of in June, it'll be too late to get his name on the ballot. Many states also have something called 'sore loser' legislation which the GOP would equally use to block his nomination.

The GOP's bigger fear is if Trump sits in television studios I believe bad mouthing the whole process, reminding everyone of the flawed democratic process and using the media as a platform to vindicate everything he alleged at the outset about the corrupt American system whereby a handful of donors and large corporate interests dictate the party line. The GOP can probably absorb another White House loss, but they fear the damage that would be done 'down ticket' in all the other races that Americans vote for on the same day. There is a reason why Mitch McConnell is considering running attack ads against Trump, as he needs to separate the senators from association with the Trump party

The other possible scenario emerging is the GOP running a rebel candidate against Trump. Crazy at face value, but by no means out of the question. Doing this hands Clinton the White House, but possibly protects the Senate and Congress

America hasn't really come to terms with it yet so far as I can see. They haven't recognised that Hillary is actually their last line of defence, or will be in a matter of a month on this current trajectory. If they don't rally behind her, America stands on the cusp of electing someone to whom the word fascist could be applied and not be entirely inappropriate

Heads are spinnin'
 
SlimChance said:
You could be right but It's very hard for a yank to bet into Betfair given its illegal. I think this is worth a few moments consideration. People don't tend to throw away €700.
Click to expand...

Just returning to this by way of idle speculation. It's always possible that someone knows, or has reason to suspect that there's a Carson endorsement coming and they're then extrapolating off that? Remember how Christie's endorsement came 24 hours after the Texas debate and in time for Super Tuesday. It ensured that Rubio (who was otherwise the headline act the following day) was suddenly a support news item as Trump and Christie grabbed the headlines.

If Trump has secured Carsons support, then Friday morning would be the time to announce it, and especially if Trumps had a rough debate. Carson lives in Florida, Trump will be at Doral this weekend.

Also remember in his press conference on ST that Trump made a reference to how badly Carson had been treated by debate moderators not allowing him fair air time. It was a conciliatory nod of friendship I thought

There's another round of voting on Saturday where Carson could add 5% to Trump in Louisiana
 
Warbler said:
An open letter signed by various neocons and warhawks. When these sorts of folk are calling you out for being dangerously unhinged there is a real problem

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
Click to expand...
You have to appreciate that an intervention such as this is the work of a special-interest group with an agenda of their own. The letter is coordinated and formulated by a private company heavily involved in the national security consultancy business -- The Ferrybridge Group. It's little more than a bleat from those involved in the military-industrial complex who fear their milking of a enormous cash cow will be severely restricted under a Trump administration. Trump has long said that whilst he will continue to absolutely support the Armed Forces, he will end the enormous wastage of billions of dollars on useless projects that only line the pockets of the contractors.
So, I'm not sure if the letter will find much traction.
 
Back
Top