US Presidential election 2016

[icebreaker]

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

If Hillary Clinton is the saviour of American dream or system, then god help us.
The woman is a congenital, compulsive liar; Whitewater, Travelgate, Bosnia, Benghazi etc etc etc. She is in hock to big business, taking campaign funds from dubious interests trying to buy influence -- banks, criminals, Chinese government security agents. All of this is documented; she has even faced congressional and federal investigations of these accusations. Her and her husband even rented out the Liberty bedroom suite of the White House in return for campaign funds.
She is the woman who supported her philandering husband not just vocally but also in threatening and intimidating those women who were coming forward to report pervy Bill. She supported her husband's economic plan that fcked the black people at the bottom of the pile for a generation of poverty and imprisonment. As Sec of State she pushed agressively for the bombing of Libya, just one of her interventions that has pushed the middle-east to near meltdown.
The woman is pure evil, inho of course.

 

[icebreaker]

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/

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.

 

[icebreaker]

Trump showed poorly in last night's debate, I thought.
Allowing himself to be baited; showing himself to be a bit thin-skinned after all.
Oh Donald, is it really appropriate on a national stage to be talking about your penis size when you are offering yourself as president of the U.S.A.? :blink:

 

[icebreaker]

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

Well, I've been swung by yourself and by Slim ( two people whose opinion I value, btw) to add a small amount of Ladbrokes 25's about Carson V.P. to my portfolio.
Not enough to feel any pain if he doesn't get the gig, but enough to have a good night out if he does.
(I really can't see it meself, to be honest, but ............)

 

[Warbler]

(I really can't see it meself, to be honest, but ............)

Neither can I, it makes no political sense. An endorsement doesn't mean he's under consideration either (Palin endorsed him, but she'd be toxic). Although now I rethink further what he said at that ST press conference he made some crazy reference to winning 25% of the black vote, and correctly suggested that if he did he would be President. It struck me as such an outrageous thing to say. I dismissed it, assuming he was talking about 25% of the republican black vote. He's also talked a few times now about how he can put Michigan in play (often in the same breath as New York - his own home state). Carson is from Detroit. Coincidence?

It does make me wonder if he has done a deal with Carson down the line, but I think Carson is still technically in the race?

Carson as veep still looks insane, nearly as bad as Palin, but we are talking Trump here. I think the clues might be there, but 2 + 2 = 5 is one mathematics more reliable equations! I just can't see that there is much political upside to it

 

[brendanr]

Back from a land of true Socialist ideals (actually quite enjoyed myself) and having just got caught up trawling thru the contributions my first impression is WOW! Icebreaker wtf? Not sure what your agenda is but just quoting the Daily Mail and Political Insider(do you have any idea what is behind that excrement of a publication) makes me suspicious of you having discriminating rational thoughts on the matter at hand,and continued use of the word evil as pertains to Hillary Clinton is just more fodder for thought. I’m by no means a Clinton apologist and think she has issues to answer for not least of all concerning the email “scandal”. Personally I’d prefer to wait and see what the ongoing investigation turns up before racing to judgement. And yes I do think she handled herself poorly in this matter at the outset. A lot of the other issues brought up by you are right out of say somebody like Sean Inanity’s playbook and have been investigated ad nauseum.

For a more nuanced view on these see link below http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

Also lumping in policy decisions that have gone against her is disingenuous, Were you not a vociferous voice in calling for an all out assault on ISIS on the ISIS thread? President of the US is a tough job to say the least and sadly wrong decisions will be made. She had a strong possibly compelling case for Libya and convinced her boss who was not of the same opinion. Probably the wrong decision but of course in hindsight and without knowing what would have transpired had there been no intervention.

On the subject of Trump, I find nothing risible with Romney’s bashing of Trump unless of course you hold it against him based on his 2012 campaign where he embraced Trump, fair enough. Maybe he has come to his senses and as all the Trump apologists are apt to state time and again about their own choice when asked about his constant flip flops, “he has the right to change his opinions” and so does Romney and good on him. Everything he brought up is correct and still he left out a few things. I personally don’t think he is motivated by the fact that he might have a shot at an open convention.

The argument that “the establishment does not want a democracy” and “I would like Trump to win if only to show that the ballot box is still a weapon of the common man” seems reasonable and I don’t think the RNC will deny him if he gets the necessary delegates. If he does not however the convention is well within their rights to go for someone else.Trump is the ultimate what’s in it for me candidate and the stuff he has injected into this campaign is far more risible than anything Romney said.

John Oliver’s brutal irreverent beat down of Trump says it all. More than 17 million views almost 350K likes against 16K dislikes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ.

In all these numbers that have been bandied about for me the most telling one is that Trump has gained across the board after 15 states 35% acceptance within his own party. So if, as has been stated over and over that Trump has brought in all these new voters why is his percentage not higher? Could it be that there is a counter movement underway that has brought in new voters aghast at Trumps rantings?

The other parameter for which I have seen no numbers which ties into above is how many people would not vote for Trump. I had Inanity on Fox and CNN at the same time this morning and in both shows people (Republican voters) were asked if they would support Trump as the nominee and surprisingly there were quite a few that took a no position on both channels. Purely anecdotal but it is something that imo needs to be investigated with more rigor than we’ve seen till now.

While I admire Slim’s rigorous application of numbers driven betting it is at times too rigid and to use the fact that somebody put up 700 at 23 on Betfair for Carson as VP while 25 is available elsewhere is too weak to consider for having a bet. I have limited access to Betfair but if what I see is correct then there has already been $286 traded on Carson at 10’s and almost 200 at 24 with another 820 available. Why do that when 26 is available elsewhere? To me the most likely answer is people don’t know what the **** they are doing. Second most likely is I have no ******* idea why but they definitely don’t have inside info otherwise they’d go for the 25/1 first unless of course their account was restricted haha. In either case Carson as VP would have to be a 250/1 shot for me to even entertain the thought of having a bet on that outcome. It’s just not happening.

In my voting eligible life I have voted twice once in 1980 and again in 2008. This election cycle definitely has me thinking that I’ll actually have to cast a vote again if Trump is the Republican nominee.

 

[icebreaker]

WOW! Icebreaker wtf? Not sure what your agenda is but just quoting the Daily Mail and Political Insider(do you have any idea what is behind that excrement of a publication) makes me suspicious of you having discriminating rational thoughts on the matter at hand

When you can kindly show where I have quoted without attribution the DailyMail or PoliticalInsider anywhere on this thread , then I will willingly engage with you in debate re Hillary Clinton.
My views expressed about this woman are entirely my own; the "IMHO" at the very end of the particular post of mine in question should suggest just that.


Doing a search, my alleged "continuous use of the word evil" in your words appears to me to have penned twice in this entire thread. Clearly, your definition of the word "continuous" differs from mine.

 

[brendanr]

Post 389 - - "Professor Helmut Norpoth’s statistical modeling gives Trump a 97 percent chance of beating Clinton in November if he's the GOP nominee.

- He'd have an even better shot against Bernie Sanders - 99 percent

- Norpoth's model has accurately predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, The Statesman reports, except the election of 1960

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...president.html"

Post 395 - "The sex shenanigans coming to light make this Presidential race more entertaining than any episode of the West Wing !

As well of course, there is the elephant-in-the-room regarding Hilary's sexual history than nobody is mentioning yet. Bernie is too much of a decent man to bring it up, but surely somebody will.
I refer to the Webb Hubbell matter .................
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/h...tons-daughter/"

Maybe quote was the wrong word but you referenced both of those soiled toilet rags and practically endorsed the 2nd by "referring to the Webb Hubbell matter, making it sound like there is a Webb Hubbell matter. There is no Webb Hubbell matter just pure fantasy by a particularly vile publication.

As for Professor Norpoth sounds like a villain from a Felix the Cat cartoon, as far as I'm concerned the Mail could have made him up. Where is the data to back this up.

As far as the usage of the word evil is concerned more than once is enough for me to deem it continuous. Based on everything else you've stated about her you obviously believe she is. So not sure what your beef is here.

 

[Warbler]

For those who value intellectual stimulation and thoughtful consideration of complex political issues, CNN has captured the high quality threshold that the GOP demands of its presidential candidates in one rather succinct headline

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-small-hands-marco-rubio/index.html

It would appear that Fox have jumped onto the Kasich horse this morning incidentally, with Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Rielly leading the charge for their new anointed now that they've given up on Rubio

 

[icebreaker]

Post 389 - - "Professor Helmut Norpoth’s statistical modeling gives Trump a 97 percent chance of beating Clinton in November if he's the GOP nominee.

- He'd have an even better shot against Bernie Sanders - 99 percent

- Norpoth's model has accurately predicted the winner of every national election since 1912, The Statesman reports, except the election of 1960

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...president.html"

Post 395 - "The sex shenanigans coming to light make this Presidential race more entertaining than any episode of the West Wing !

As well of course, there is the elephant-in-the-room regarding Hilary's sexual history than nobody is mentioning yet. Bernie is too much of a decent man to bring it up, but surely somebody will.
I refer to the Webb Hubbell matter .................
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/h...tons-daughter/"

You've managed to drag up two posts of mine where I clearly attributed the source material. I asked you earlier ( when you insinuated that my contributions were lifted from DailyMail or PoliticalInsider without accrediting same) for evidence. Do you understand what "attribute" means? I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. Whilst your at it, look up "continuous" also. Using a word twice doesn't make for "continuous" usage. FWIW, you yourself have now also used that very word twice also -- same as me --does that make it continuous by your definition?

There is no Webb Hubbell matter just pure fantasy by a particularly vile publication.

And elsewhere. Have a quick scout around the internet for more of the same; not least from some ex-White House staffers and close-to-the-Clintons people.

As for Professor Norpoth sounds like a villain from a Felix the Cat cartoon, as far as I'm concerned the Mail could have made him up.

Again, a little research would have helped you out. Norpoth holds the professorial chair at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I'm certainly not endorsing his academic work or his conclusions; I just put up his findings as a matter of interest in the context of betting odds on the Trump nomination. You, on the other hand, seem to refer to it at this delayed stage as an attempt to belittle and deride me.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[icebreaker]

It would appear that Fox have jumped onto the Kasich horse this morning incidentally,

Quite honestly, John Kasich seemed to me to be the only adult person on that stage in Detroit last night.
He spoke on issues, rather than the childish tit-for-tat argumentation and insults of the others.

 

[brendanr]

You've managed to drag up two posts of mine where I clearly attributed the source material. I asked you earlier ( when you insinuated that my contributions were lifted from DailyMail or PoliticalInsider without accrediting same) for evidence. Do you understand what "attribute" means? I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. Whilst your at it, look up "continuous" also. Using a word twice doesn't make for "continuous" usage. FWIW, you yourself have now also used that very word twice also -- same as me --does that make it continuous by your definition?


And elsewhere. Have a quick scout around the internet for more of the same; not least from some ex-White House staffers and close-to-the-Clintons people.

Again, a little research would have helped you out. Norpoth holds the professorial chair at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. I'm certainly not endorsing his academic work or his conclusions; I just put up his findings as a matter of interest in the context of betting odds on the Trump nomination. You, on the other hand, seem to refer to it at this delayed stage as an attempt to belittle and deride me.

I'll leave it at that.

I was not attempting to belittle or deride you at this belated point but internet access in the country where I was staying the last 3 weeks is strictly limited. I'll comment on anything I feel is worth commenting on. You seem to have missed my point where I stated that quoted was the wrong word used on my part and I corrected it to referenced. I also explained my use of the word continuous if it is does not match yours so be it. No big deal as far as I'm concerned. As to what you read/believe on the internet go for it I'm a staunch defender of freedom of speech but I'll also reserve the right to view someone's opinions with suspicion when websites like thepoliticalinsider are referred to as some sort of legitimizing source material, they are not legitimate, even in the context of betting odds material. Good to see that you thought better of the name calling and deleted that part.

 

[brendanr]

It would appear that Fox have jumped onto the Kasich horse this morning incidentally, with Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Rielly leading the charge for their new anointed now that they've given up on Rubio

Kasich is going nowhere he should have left the stage with Carson. Problem with Kasich imo is that he only talks about the issues and not the danger that is standing next to him on the debate stage, take your pick.

I'm biased but Paul Krugman's op ed piece in the NY Times this morning pretty much sums up my feelings about the 3 Stooges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/o...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

 

[Warbler]

I think Krugman is largely saying what we've concluded with access to a lot less source material than he has. Trump is threatening to expose the whole rotten edifice of the GOP and they can't control him because he's not a part of the donor hegemony, nor is he reliable. The party has become the creation of the old industrial military complex and irrational spending decisions based on corrupt cronyism. He's also expanding this by shining a light into other areas of American life, notably health insurance. Private prisions would be another, as would food production. Energy is of course well documented. Throw in some posionous elements like the Dixiecrats and the Tea Party and you create a perfect storm of nasties and lunatics

I'm not convinced Katich is dead just yet, and he'll stay in the race for such time as the new tactic seems to be to flood the field to reduce Trumps delegate count. He has said he drops out after Ohio if he loses. I expect him to carry his home state despite what the polls are saying at the moment and then what? He says he's not interested in a VP ticket, (but then he has to). I can see however that if Rubio is beaten by Cleveland he might just sit in for the journey yet, but with more states going WTA its difficult to see him getting to 200 which surely makes a mockery of the whole thing if he gets the nod at a brokered convention. I suppose he's expendable in the wider GOP game, for any nominee that wins through a back room deal is going to be totally discredited in the general election that they'll lose by more than if they let Trump try his hand

Just looking at tomorrows races, there's very little polling data to go on

I expect Cruz to win Kansas. Trump might be ahead at the moment, but the undecideds in the polling are massive. The evidence we've seen to date is that the late deciders break heavily against Trump. He was overturned in Oklahoma and Iowa, and to some extent Alaska. The gap closed up significantly in Virginia and Vermont too. This being another caucus state with similar characteristics to Iowa makes him vulnerable
EDIT UPDATE - A new poll has the undecideds now making up just 6% (not 39%) and Trump enjoying a lead of 6pts over Cruz. Trump is going to Wichita on Saturday. Urm.... to close to call. Instinct still makes me lean towards Cruz to overturn 6% if the 'non-Trump' popular front being put to the test for the first time has any legs

Maine should be Trump if my east coast hypothesis is right. The polling data is ancient and actually has Christie with a 13pt lead. Again its a caucus state. I would imagine LePage might get something going for him as a politically active player, rather than Palin who let him down in Alaska. I think he's vulnerable to Kasich here though. I note Vermont was a lot closer than it should have been according to the polling, and kasich made huge strides. Vermont has also been the only state to date that saw a lower turnout than 2012. If you could get a price on Kasich it might be worth a dabble, but it is price dependent

Kentucky is an interesting one. 15% are undecided which means it could be a whole lot closer than imagined but will generate something like his Arkansas, Tennessee or Virginia result. Kentucky is a sin state really (racing, whiskey, and a bit of tobacco thrown in for good measure). Its not natural Cruz territory. Carsons departure is likely to feed Trump and Cruz more than Rubio, who himself looks a bit broken. It's difficult to argue he has momentum, so quite how he overhauls Trump's 13% I don't know? He needs the Cruz vote collapse and switch. They're still playing for second place though, and shutting Marco out helps that. A brokered convention needn't be restricted to infuriating Trump supporters, you might easily find Cruz supporters going ape too, if they try and impose Rubio/ Katich/ or Romney

The one that annoyed me was Louisiana as the punditry were giving this to Cruz last week in the absence of polling data. Since then two polls have come out which have Trump with double digit leads, and more importantly, just 5% undecided. In recent times its gone for Santorum and Huckerbee which perhaps allied with the influence of Texas was being used to predict a Cruz win. I suspect Trump will start favourite now.

It would have been a test of my east/ west hypothesis actually, as Trump took Alabama convincingly but lost Texas and Oklahoma. He's been winning the Atlantic coast, but how far west does he spread along the Gulf Coast? Louisiana is on the same longtitude as Arkansas making it a close Trump win rather than a Cruz state on crude geography. If he takes Louisiana then probably follows up with Mississippi too. The only piece missing is Florida then, which does have dseprate dynamics that means it performs differently to the deep south, and more so this year with a sitting Senator who'll have to risk his reputation.

 

[Warbler]

If you want to back Nate Silver agains the British bookmaking industry, nows your chance

The gurus at 538 are predicting Doanld Trump has a 51% to win Kansas, the UK price is 15/8

 

[Warbler]

On the subject of Trump, I find nothing risible with Romney’s bashing of Trump unless of course you hold it against him based on his 2012 campaign where he embraced Trump, fair enough.

I believe it was I who used the word "risible" so I believe that perhaps I should expand on why

For about 6 weeks now we've been watching this shadowy 'elite' of the GOP nuance ideas about how they're going to stop Trump in the name of democracy. Well actually it's got little to do with democracy. It's got a whole lot more to do with protecting the corporate interests of the donor class and not damaging what they percieve to be their brand, their party, and their strategy. The voters? Well they're just people who are periodically called upon to rubber stamp it, it's just that this time they aren't doing, and this frightens the GOP

So lets look at some of the things we've seen the GOP do/ ideas they've allowed to flower over the last 6 weeks

1: The establishment of an anti-Trump super PAC to campaign against the person winning their own process
2: The GOP senate leader has suggested running attack ads against Trump in order to protect his own power base
3: Run a rebel candidate against the choice of the Republican voters should Trump win the nomination
4: Openly endorse Hillary Clinton

So we were told to await a special announcement by Mitt Romney. Expectation mounts. Mitt is going to join the race? Mitt is going to make himself available as a VP? Mitt is going to endorse a candidate and call on others to drop out? This is the great fightback to arrest the danger Trump poses?

No

What we got instead was Mitt Romney telling us

1: Trump isn't to be trusted
2: Neither is Clinton
3: Vote for John Kasich in Ohio instead

With the best will the world, this is risible. The anti Trump Republicans know Trump isn't to be trusted. That's why they're anti Trump. I'd like to tell Mitt Romney something. Water is wet!

Not only was it underwhelming, it also helps feed the Trump narrative of him being an outsider and the party being run by a scheming elite who use it for advancing their own personal political power and feathering the nest of their commercial donors. At its worst it threatens to start driving sympathy towards Trump. What Romney is clearly calling for is a brokered convention. Otherwise why did he fail to endorse anyone? and why did he explicitly say vote for Rubio in Florida and Kasich in Ohio?

A few weeks ago the tactical orthodoxy was that they should drop out and unite behind an anti Trump candidate (even though they couldn't affect this - but they were working towards Rubio). Sadly for the GOP, Rubio bombed. Now they're reversing this position. Romney is saying keep everyone in play until such as they go to WTA. This is clearly designed to keep Trumps delegate count to below 1237. What he's saying in effect is if we can't beat him through debate and the ballot box don't worry, leave it up to us and we'll beat him on a technicality, provided you, the voting suckers, do what we tell you. This is dangerous

At a stroke the GOP are signalling that they're gearing up to try and swindle Trump out of the nomination. Get this wrong and they may actually achieve the almost impossible outcome of all and make America feel sorry for him. Hell, the voters of California might even turn round and take the whole decision away from the GOP yet if this narrative is allowed to build.

It looks decidely two faced as well. The GOP made Trump agree to not running third party in return for a level playing field and equal treatment. They've been fraying this round the edges for some time, most notably by loading debate audiences etc but now they're going a step further. We know they'll alter rule 40(b) if Rubio or even Romeny himself decides to enter the fray.

And today we learn what motivated Romney. Service to the country? Loyalty to the party? No. He didn't want to have to tell his grandchildren that he did nothing to oppose Il Duce. Oh pleeeeease.

"So what did you do grandpa"
"Why I told them I don't like Donald Trump in 2016, even though I happily took his money in 2012. Then I said I didn't like Hillary Clinton either. Finally, I said vote for John Katich in the Ohio primary"

I think most people would have been a bit more impressed had he actually put the gloves on and joined the fight (its what Evander Holyfield would have wanted surely?). Instead he's stood on the side lines lobbing grenades. He's simply repeated a whole string of allegations which any anti Trump voters could find plastered all over the internet and is more than familiar with already. In a worst case scenario he's helped lay out a narrative that Trump can exploit to help secure the nomination.

No I'm not impressed. At the very least he should have spoken of the historical gravity which is involved. Instead he seems to have framed everything through the needs of the GOP and quite possibly himself yet (wait and see on that one).

He had a stage to deliver a call to America, appealing to the country to mobilise and resist. He should have invoked Omaha beach, and Iwo Jima. He should have framed it as a battle for the soul of the United States, and a battle that we now have to take and win. A battle between light and dark. He should have invoked old European language about gathering storm clouds and that your country is now calling you to defend it against a sinister threat. He should have impressed upon them the urgency to do so, suggesting activities that ordinary citizens should now undertake. He should have told them though that if they fail to, they will lose, but if they show the spirit of old and rise to the challenge, resist, and say no, then they'll all succeed. He should have issued calls to the people, name checking cities around the US, and jobs that people do. He should have made the fightback relevant to all and given everyone a role to play. He should have reminded folk that authoritarian regimes always penalise their own populations first, and that our first duty as citizens is to defend their liberties etc

This is a famous attack ad that did for Barry Goldwater

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k

Basically he should have gone OTT and whipped it up. Instead he flubbed it, and just rattled off bullet points about Trumps character. I'm not sure that Romney understands the threat if I'm honest, and that's why I thought it was risible. He shouldn't even have mentioned Hillary Clinton (just shows his priortities are all wrong). He could have goen dramatic if he had to though and acknowledge that if Trump wins the nomination, then the Democrats are our last line of defence etc that would have struck home

I note he's been largely mocked for his intervention 24 hours later

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/05/republicans-donald-trump-party-anger

 

[Warbler]

Carson finally does drop out now (officially)

Does that throw a spanner in the Kansas calculations? Heaven knows. Conventional thinking was that his vote would gravitate towards Cruz but after Iowa no one has been certain of it. He holds some very right wing positions too, more consistent with Trump, but Rubio has been trying to move onto that patch lately. I suspect his vote will scatter quite evenly, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Trump benefits most, and neither would I be shocked if Trump picks up an endorsement. I think if you join the dots up, there are clues to suggest that this might be in the air

 

[Warbler]

In the last 20 years the GOP has invited new elements into this movement. Rather than being endorsers/ voters (as intended) these lobby groups have become formulators to the detriment of their appeal. The Tea Party is the classic example. They've embraced aggressive christianity on an unprecdented level and become hostage to all sorts of social conservative issues that have been allowed a level of influence far beyond the significance they should have commanded. They've promoted anti science, and encouraged anti intellectualism to the point where its considered attractive. They even put Sarah Palin on a presidential ticket!

But in order to stay operational, movement conservatism needs people to endorse it. Traditional blue collar republicans and the Reagan Democrats, abandoned the party. Instead the GOP have fallen back on the south, where they've encountered a group of people who Paul Krugman noted have been voting against their own economic interests for a couple decades now, but whom found a greater calling in social conservatism and religion.

This is where Trump has gained hugely (accidentially I suspect). He's invented a new religion. It's not him. Its a religion called 'America'. He possibly realises that the calling to "Make America Great Again" can reach out beyond movement conservatism, and the chains of any other 'ism' or bonded group. It can appeal to an even stronger base emotion in people.

This new religion of America embodies many of the characteristics of a conventional religion, hence its appeal. It is capable of being communicated as a calling to a way of life, an comes with a ready defined a value belief system. It's something that people are capable of transferring a degree of following to, and at worst a sense of worship. At a stroke he's dispelling the need to pander to the likes of Beck, Bachmann, Limbaugh, and Erickson.

What Trump seems to be creating is a giant American totem which obedient tribute states dance around in worship. It will be a relationship characterised by naked greed sold domestically as American self interest. It will be backed up by their military, which he clearly sees as something of a foreign currency earner and bargining chip. Even if it doesn't start off as fascist, its well down that road. It isn't a particularly long journey required to the coronation.

If you want an insight into some of the dynamics going on, and how the advance of conservatism has helped create the environment that allows a barbaric Trump to thunder across the plains, you might like to acquire a copy of Thomas Franks 2004 best seller 'Whats the Matter with Kansas'. A favourite quote of mine concerns how the masses are misdirected into voting against their economic interests by the Republican establishment who having consolidated the fiscal arguments then frame the partisan distinction with inflamatory and emotive 'hot button' issues

“For decades, Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting.... The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irresistibly against the arrogant. They are shaking their fists at the sons of privilege. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawoof toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. 'We are here,' they scream, 'to cut your taxes.”
― Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America

 

[Warbler]

I suspect his vote will scatter quite evenly, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Trump benefits most, and neither would I be shocked if Trump picks up an endorsement. I think if you join the dots up, there are clues to suggest that this might be in the air

If you're happy to take some evidence from two post Carson polls from Michigan, then the answer is that his support has gone almost exclusively to Trump

Also this bit of tittle tattle might be interesting

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/03/03/if-carson-drops-out-at-cpac-who-will-he-endorse/

 

[brendanr]

If you're happy to take some evidence from two post Carson polls from Michigan, then the answer is that his support has gone almost exclusively to Trump

Also this bit of tittle tattle might be interesting

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/03/03/if-carson-drops-out-at-cpac-who-will-he-endorse/

That little tattle stands against what Carson said at CPAC during his bye bye speech where he endorsed no one but said: "the voters should choose someone who is accomplished and ethical and said that voters should not make a decision based on fear". Does not sound like he'd be endorsing Trump to me. Also he is reported to be taking over the helm of My Faith Votes an organization which attempts to get Christians to the voting booths. While Carson would surely add some moral balance to Trump`s campaign he knows even less about the political issues than Trump. VP`s are actually asked to do some political groundwork every now and then.

 

[Warbler]

There's an interesting semantic there though.

Fear of Trump, and being be scared by what he might be capable of is often cited by those who oppose him as a reason for doing so. Having said that, I tend to agree that its not an endorsement of Trump, but even in concession Dr Carson doesn't seem to be able to spell out anything with any clarity

I don't think Carson is a player in this either way. The most he might get out of is surgeon general (or whatever its called) but I wouldn't be totally shocked to see embroilled in a fraud case before this finally plays out

I note that the bookies have backed out pricing up Maine. I reckon Kasich could get really close here in a closed primary and was prepared to have ago.

I note also that Cruz has seemingly shattered the Romulan's call for a popular front by stepping up his activity in Florida in an attempt to finish off Rubio. Why wouldn't he though? He's no more likely to benefit from a brokered convention than Trump! He needs to drag this into a head to head as quickly as possible now

 

[Warbler]

Might worth speculatively laying Trump in Maine?

I honestly think there's a bit of a case for all four here. Trump has proven vulnerable in a small state, closed caucus. He was beaten in Alaska like this. OK it was Cruz who won there, but then Alaska has more religious folk than Maine. Le Page is unpopular and Trump hasn't really worked the state. Kasich has over performed in Vermont and New Hampshire and might even be in with a shout. Its just a hunch, Trump could slaughter them, but if there has been any fall out from the last debate and the Romney denunciation (former governor of a New England state) it might show up in Maine. If Trump can be laid against the field odds on, it might be worth trying

 

[icebreaker]

If the Republican Primary run did get to the national convention stage without any candidate reaching a majority, and there was subsequently a brokered convention -- how would you price up the candidates in that scenario at this moment in time?

I'm looking at it this way:
Cruz. No, I feel comfortable in scratching him. Given how much he is disliked by senior party figures, those same figures will work actively against him in persuading superdelgates to cast negative for him, no?
Rubio. Maybe. He was the one-time golden boy of the party grandees -- probably still is -- but surely his popular vote numbers and the number of Primaries he has won (one -- MN) and only a hundred or so delegates so far must count against him?
Trump. The sole purpose of the G.O.P. going for a brokered convention is of course to steal the nomination from Trump. The most unacceptable canditate of them all in the eyes of the RNC. So, in that context, don't his current odds of 1.50 start to look distinctly short?
Kasich. I' starting to think this man has a sniff. Well-liked all 'round, safe with no apparent baggage, a career politician with influential ties. I'm biased in that I like him as a person, and think that he would make a good president -- well, a better president than any of the others. He seemed to be upbeat at today's CPAC convention; saying that if he carries Ohio and a couple of other states he can go to national convention as a viable player in a brokered arrangement. I don't think he is being outlandish in that assessment. I have had a very small nibble at his current price of 21.0.

So, if you were to price a book in these circumstances, how would it look?

 

[icebreaker]

Might worth speculatively laying Trump in Maine?

Had a look, but unfortunately there's nothing to lay him against on Betfair -- not a penny. Nobody it seems wants to back him. One could of course offer a price but it would need to be crazy high to get any takers.

 

[Warbler]

So, if you were to price a book in these circumstances, how would it look?

I'd put Romney in the book to start with, as I would Paul Ryan. My own suspicion is that they'd more likely be VP though (note Romney refused to rule it out, but only gave the standard "I can't foresee circumstances".... answer)

I've already suggested Kasich at 40/1 in expecttaion of a show in NH. I admit I'd anticipated trading out of him with a surge for Jeb, but as it happened it went the other way, so kasich was never laid off. Jeb shortened again into 6/1, but the writing was read quickly enough to get out of him as South Carolina collapsed about 48 hours later

Kasich will sink or swim on the Ohio primary

It might also be worth exploring the California primary too. You might be able hedge something. If Trump wins that (and there's no reason to think he will at this stage) then he'll win the nomination by right. My hunch is that as the GOP moves to shift the goalposts and the public can see Trump being swindled out of it on a technicality, (and for all the reasons he warned of) there could be a backlash yet in the name of fair play and a bit of a sympathy vote starts to develop.

This is a crazy election. So much of what has come to pass would have been inconceivable had you suggested just 3 months earlier. The idea of a wave of sympathy towards victim Trump certainly fits that description