US Presidential election 2016

Bit of gold here

Rubio finally makes the first move and implores his supporters to vote for John Kasich in Ohio. The American commentariat holds its breath for a few hours. Does this mark a new chapter? Tactical voting? Is the #nottrump team playing their hand? is this the devious product of operation 'low energy'? most importantly, will Kasich reciprocate and cement a new alliance

A few hours later Kasich responds

"We were going to win in Ohio without his help, just as he's going to lose in Florida without ours"
 
He was only ever a trade. Carson's not a VP. That Kasich has refused to join Rubio's 'all onto Trump' call in Florida is perhaps a better pointer of someone who is keeping his options open, and he's certainly more attractive from a geostrategic perspective. Having said that, Kasich also needs to knock Rubio out to have any sort of momentum so has little reason to return the favour

If you want a small contest to keep an eye on tomorrow, its the DC caucus. There's just a chance that someone might price up Cruz and Trump aggresively when the most likely winner will come from Rubio and Kasich

Rubio heavily won the Washington suburbs when Virginia voted, but he's tanked since. DC is normally more than happy to plough its own furrow though and revels in its reputation as being the most informed electorate in America. Trump and Cruz would be big no, no's to them

Folk might like this one from 1964 - sound familiar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiG0AE8zdTU

For the unfamiliar, I believe Barry Goldwater was advocating for the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam
 
Last edited:
Politicians who are running for President always deny they're interested in being the Veep. Everyone understands and accepts that, and so no one believes them when they say it, but to describe yourself as the worst, now that is novel :lol:

Jeff Sessions is another strong possibility I'd have thought if party unity becomes an issue

If you want an outsider, and are prepared to bet for a yet unforeseen major incident, it might be worth exploring William McCrystal who should be close to 100/1. If America finds herself on a war footing in the next 6 months as a result of 'something' (and it needn't take that much, such is the undercurrent in the country at the moment) then a hardline military man with political aspirations might be the ticket yet
 
Looks like there's been some kind of a clash in Chicago between Trump and Sanders supporters. Probably not as serious as some of the more hysterical networks are reporting, but enough for the Trump rally to be cancelled
 
Stuff Cheltenham, back to the greatest farce on earth, which in the last few days has turned ugly with Trump supporters clashing with 'Berniebros' and Trump supporters now saying that they'll start taking firearms to rallies (as you do). My favourite one was the 78yo guy who punched a black fella because "he could have been ISIS". Trump has apparently instructed his team to investigate paying the legal bills

Trump has picked up the Marianas Islands without anyone noticing (9 delegates) so we move onto another Super Tuesday

Florida sees Marco Rubio's last stand. The boy stood on the burning deck, when all but he had fled. Cruz has packed up bothering there. So too has Trump. Reports are coming in of Trump being missed off some ballots (obviously Jeb Bush hasn't lost his touch in FL) but the wise owls have been calling this WTA for Trump for some time

North Carolina is the only proportional state voting today, and when he pulled out, Ben Carson was still polling at 10% here. The general consensus is he carries it (Trump that is, read that back and it sounded as if I was predicting a Carson win!)

Ohio is perhaps the most important prize of the lot. If Trump can beat Kasich here then Kasich has said he'll withdraw, effectively turning it into a straight fight between Trump and Cruz, which you have to assume the Donald wins. Hell, even I'd vote for Trump before Cruz. The last poll had Kasich and Trump tied, but if you drilled into the data you'd discover it was weighted towards a Trump turnout of bluecollar non college educated voters that haven't previously shown up in the numbers that they're weighted to do so. Translated? it likely flatters Trump by about 2-3% which is the margin I'm going to call it in favour Kasich for. The Rubio 'don't vote for me' has been heeded and he was last seen on 3% so little downside left there

Illinois is a WTA by congressional district, and probably polarises due to there being some quite strong evangelical pockets in the south of the state that will go Cruz's way. I expect Trump to sneak it by about 3% but for Cruz to limit the damage and win delegates

Missouri is similar to Illinois. I had thought Cruz could take this, but I've been alarmed by the amount of chatter I'm seeing from people who are anti Trump (supposedly) who are now seriously considering voting for him in order to register their disapproval of the protests at his rally. Honestly you couldn't make this sort of thing up could you? Is it any wonder that this country ends up with Presidents like George W Bush, and that 46% of them were prepared to risk Sarah Palin as their Commander in Chief. I think ordinarily Missouri would have gone Cruz, but I'm inclined to reverse this now and suggest Trump gets it narrowly. I can't believe there are many BLM Republicans and the reaction against this protest in Chicago might play out for him in a Republican race. This is an open Primary (like Illinois). In the past this format has suited Trump, and although I've seen no evidence to suggest it won't do in the future, it still nonetheless has the capacity to turn against him

So 4 out of 5 sets Trump up for the nomination. 5 out of 5 would probably signal that he's going to secure it

There is hope though, 3 out of 5 is a distinct possibility. He's by no means sure of Illinois and Missouri. If the Kasich vote in Illinois migrates on the day, Trump will lose to Cruz there. Cruz could also beat legitimately in Missouri too, but the vote is spread more uniformerly across the state I believe. If Trump is carrying 5% he could end up sweeping the lot

If there is to be a push back against Trump, it has to be tonight, within the next few hours

Fluent Rubio here filmed a few days ago, probably best watched from about 10.00 onwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztdzg5kssXk
 
Last edited:
Unprecedented numbers of Democrats voting in the Ohio Republican primary today

No one seems to be certain what the implications of this are though. Are they blue collar Reagan Democrats supporting Trump, or are they anti Trumpers terrified by him and no longer trusting the GOP to sort their own batshit crazy party out, and have taken it upon themselves to do it for them? We'll perhaps have a clue at 01.00 this morning. My guess is that its more likely to be stop Trump voters such has been the rise in temperature in the last 3-4 days.

As a side bet, I'm also told that these Democrats voting in Open Republican primaries are more likely Hillary supporters as Sanders has a stronger core loyalty. I'm not convinced of this myself. I think they're more likely to be enraged Sanders supporters who are running out of ways to impact the campaign and have turned on Trump instead, but if you believe the former explanation, then perhaps backing Sanders at a price is a possible play
 
Last edited:
Reading between the lines, Rubio seemed to be indicating he isn't finished yet, and Kasich said he had some important people joining him - Rubio endorsement in the offing? A ticket of Kasich/ Rubio to come through a contested convention?

There is a stumbling block in Pennsylvania to get over. Kasich has probably made a mistake with the signatures on his ballot nomination. Rubio's folk have challenged it and as things stand (last time I knew) Kasich's place on the ballot was in severe doubt

Oh crikey, Kasich opens his speech showering platitudes on Rubio - its a done deal folk. Rubio is joining Kasich's team I'd say
 
Last edited:
Looks like Illinois and North Carolina have been called for Trump, but I'm not sure he's won them by the margins he needs to? It'll all become clearer in the morning. NC is easier to work out, but MO and IL are congressional district allocations

Voldermort is due to speak soon, see what bile he has to bellow
 
Last edited:
Missouri looks like going right down to the wire 1 or 2% each way. At this stage Trump has taken the east and Cruz looks set well in the west. You have to say that there's more western districts to come in, and if you had to call it, I think you'd err on the side of Cruz to overhaul him

God he's inarticulate isn't he? Talking about the maths of opinion polls, he says that analysts don't understand physics :lol:

He makes George W Bush look smart. This is what he said

"I was watching the news a little while ago, and one of the commentators said, "But Donald Trump doesn't ever get over fifty percent"... And I have to explain to these people ... They don't understand basic physics"
 
Last edited:
Last week I mucked about with this RCP delegate predictor tool. Even when I was ebign generous to Trump, I still couldn't get him to 1237. IIRC I think 1183 was the best result I could generate for him. It's why I felt there was definite mileage in laying him given that he was heavy odds on

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/the_gop_race_for_delegates_an_interactive_tool.html

The hypothesis still stands, and after his lacklustre rallying call last night which sounded both tired and even more aimless than usual, I think Trump is starting to realise it. I'm beginning to wonder how he ever closed a deal in his life!

Basically Ted Cruz has a black belt across the plains states, possibly extending into Arizona even. Kasich was always likely to emerge as a threat in in Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and possibly Maryland, Delaware and Rhode Island

I don't see how Trump can make any inroads into the Cruz black belt. The result from Missouri has probably shown it actually with St Louis in the east going Trump, and Kansas City in the west going Cruz. The boundary line runs down the state. Trump has to go west of the Rockie to win again, and that means Oregon, Washington and California. I suspect Kasich will have some traction in the Pacific states. Oregon is proportional which would probably be the least Trump friendly of the three

I can certainly see the Cruz vote migrating to Kasich in the east and north, but am less sure that the Kasich vote will migrate to Cruz. Then again, Cruz might not need it to win the states he needs to win. He'd likely win Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, the Dakotas and Colorado without them (CO is unallocated anyway so Trump won't pick up any skin there). It leaves New Mexico and Arizona as Trumps only possibilities from this black belt, albeit NM is proportional too

As the race starts to tighten and the possibility of Cruz winning a contested convention dawns on folk it seems logical that he will come under greater scrutiny. Cruz is a dominionist, a really scary guy who thinks he's a king sent by God to keep America on the righteous path etc. I really can't see this playing out well in California and Washington, and forget it in New York, Conneticuit and New Jersey

At this stage I'm inclined to think Trump will come up just short but will be the moral winner. Can the GOP really deny their membership their choice? It depends how close to 1237 he is I suppose

Trump appears now to have a ceiling of about 45% in the south and 40% in the north. He also has a hard floor of about 35% and 32% too

The west coast and mid west seemingly hold the key, with Arizona also being critical as a bit of a stand alone

If the #nottrump alliance of Rubio, and Kasich with some Cruz can stop Trump in the mid west (and there's grounds to think they can) it will be contested. Would be worth crawling through the combined Rubio/ Kasich vote for Michigan, and Illinois, and see what it tells us about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Indiana. Mind you, we'll need to see this registration irregularity resolved in PA
 
This amused me

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/03/cleveland_seeking_to_buy_riot.html

So as the GOP start to explore ways in which they might change rule 40 and other methods for denying Trump the nomination, the city of Cleveland to whom hosting the convention has fallen, has decided to repsond with a tender for riot control equipment

In other news

Lindsey Graham, the man who said that if you shot Ted Cruz on the floor of the senate and were then tried in the senate, you wouldn't be convicted, has now endorsed him

There's new polls out that give Trump a good lead in Arizona (votes Tuesday) and also his biggest margin in California too

Also Trump is now refusing to take part in the next Fox debate again, albeit this time Kasich has said he won't either, and Fox have been forced into cancelling it. I mean, could they really do a 2 hour interview with Ted Cruz
 
Last edited:
The world's biggest panto rolls into Arizona and Utah this week, but increasingly I'm becoming interested in the machinations of Mitt Romney and the spectre of a third party saboteur, with the view to taking a three figure price on what looks like a very unlikely result at this stage. To affect the outcome I'm going to describe requires a lot of things to happen, but equally none of them are inconceivable in isolation

Let us first examine a subtle slide in the Romney position. He's now advocating voting for Ted Cruz. This is a different position to that which he held a few weeks ago when he suggested voting against Donald Trump by using either Cruz or Kasich dependent on local circumstances as the proxy to do it. Sure he's paid tribute to John Kasich since, but seems now to be acknowledging that he's too far behind and is cutting him out the equation. Kasich's polling in the crucial north east states and rust belt hasn't as yet shown the bounce he needs to challenge Trump there. It looks like the Donald can sweep the lot. It's equally possible that when this happens (April 26th) Kasich could throw the towel in as a somewhat embittered candidate who the establishment abandoned in preference for a more devisive and unpalatable Ted Cruz. He could quite easily feel a bit betrayed

So according to Romney, Cruz is the only hope, so isn't that an endorsement? Well no. Romney has (perhaps suspiciously) stopped short of doing this (something Lindsey Graham has noted as having a bit of "a whiff about it"). What he's calling for in effect therefore is a brokered convention, but one that sees Trump with a plurality of delegates and Cruz as the only other credible alternative about 300 behind. It possibly has the hallmarks of preparing the ground to step in as a unifying candidate himself at 100/1 to take the nomination. He must be considering it, because he denies it!!!

It's perhaps also worth trying to put yourself in the position of a 2016 RNC delegate. Christ what a depressing prospect the convention looks like being. If it goes to a contest you're in effect being asked to choose which way you'd prefer to lose. Trump or Cruz? What if an escape route is suddenly offered to you to lift the gloom and offer a ray of hope? Even if Romney repeats his 2012 defeat losing all the same states again, you'd probably regard it as a bullet dodged. I can see that pyscologically a lot of delegates might be tempted to say what the hell, lets give it a go

Romney probably lost in 2012 for three reasons

1: Running against a popular incumbant and a dynamic campaigner in Obama - this won't apply to Hillary. She isn't a dynamic campaigner, nor is she popular. She has more baggage than Fed Ex and consistently records net negative approvals

2: In 2012 the Democrats managed to paint Romney as a dangerously extreme right wing candidate. Compared to Cruz and Trump he looks a lot more palatable today, almost elder statesman like. That narrative will be much harder to light up in 2016

3: He was out-thought strategically. He might be again, but he'll have had plenty of time to learn from his mistakes. He got close last time having made a bit of a mess of the state by state race. What would happen if he only got half of them right this time?

There is another avenue opening I believe however, and this concerns a selective third party run. Allow me to go through this possibility state by state for those affected

We start with the 2012 Romney map. It's worth remembering that the vote was actually much closer than the college arithmatic generated, 51% to 47%, Obama's team were tactically ahead of Romney in terms of correctly identifying what they needed to do in target states and this played out disproportionately

Florida - is essential to any Republican, without it the task is insumountable. Trump practically lives in Florida, as does Ben Carson. He also enjoys the support of Gov Rick Scott. Obama carried it largely on a personal vote by virtue of being a charismatic campaigner. Hillary's strengths are that of an administrator. She might struggle there and she's also going to be associated with the reproachment of Cuba which doesn't enjoy universal popularity. Trump has been at pains to target Mexicans, and not Cubans. 50.01% to 49.13% isn't a difficult one to overhaul, and so the total would now read Trump 235 Clinton 303

Ohio - Lets assume that like any VP before him, John Kasich hasn't exactly been straight about his ambitions. He'll be forgiven this, its widely understood and accepted that running candidates don't tout for the job. He demonstrated in the primaries that he's a popular governor with a strong personal vote. He might also be running a bit of anti establishment resentment as already outlined if he feels betrayed by events in the nomination process. If he's on the ticket, there has to be a good chance that he'll make the difference of the 1.75% swing needed to turn the state red. Trump 253 Clinton 285

Virginia - having played about with this swing state again using the 538 prediction tool, I've concluded that this one is solidifying Democrat due to the college educated and high information voters from Fairfax and the DC suburbs. I'm now reversing a previous view and saying this stays with Hillary

Iowa - This one becomes key. It's a state that's probably trending Republican longer term. Trump has support there. He lost the caucus in quite controversial circumstances, and with no discernable ground game. Don't lose sight of the fact that he recorded the second highest level of support in Iowan history though. Perhaps more pertinently, Hillary has always struggled with Iowa herself. She's on record somewhere opining that "Iowa doesn't like me". Trump 259 Clinton 279.

Wisconsin - Now I come to the first surprise package, and this is where it becomes a bit more complicated. I've used Nate Silver's prediction tool. The use of this model persuaded me that Trump couldn't carry Virginia, but it also started to make me realise how fragile Wisconsin was. Perhaps its not that surprising though. It was described to me recently as possessing all the characteristics of a red neck state without the racism (which probably means the ethnic populations are smaller). It's only really Milwaukee and Madison that stop it being Republican. Increase in turnout of about 5% - 6% (in other words 57% to 63%) amongst white, non college educated voters, that translate to Trump votes, will flip the state (as it does New Hampshire, Colorado and Iowa). Colorado I believe will see enough retalitory compensation amongst hispancs to send it back, but this group isn't as well represented in Wisconsin or New Hampshire for that matter. Now if we only allocate Wisconsin and keep NH Dem, we have a tie at 269 votes each. This becomes critical as now the constitution kicks in. You ned 270 to win. A plurality isn't enough

Utah -Utah isn't a state you expect to see figure in any great strategic design. It's one of reddest in the union. However, Trump is considered an anti-christ by the mormons who control it. Recent polling suggests he'd lose it to both Clinton or Sanders. He's also only polling at a distant 11% in the up coming caucus. Make no mistake, Trump will very likely lose Utah in a general election. He stands for everything that Mormons don't. This would give Clinton the white house now 275 to 263

But..... what happens if mormon Mitt Romney runs independently, but critically, limits his campaign to Utah, only presenting on their ballots? He'd prevent Utah falling into Hillary's hands and effectively take it out of play. He might even consider doing something similar in Idaho too

The new result would be Clinton 269, Trump 263 Romney 6

In other words no one has enough to enter the white house and under the constitution the vote goes to the house of representatives where the Republicans have a majority and where the Speaker, Paul Ryan (R) was Romneys 2012 running mate

New Hampshire - Now I mentioned New Hampshire was also vulnerable to the same dynamic as Wisconsin. Even if we switch this to Trump the result only becomes

Clinton 265, Trump 267, Romney 6

To win the white house, Clinton has to get Wisconsin, or some other red states. Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina might be long term objectives, but its difficult to think they're ready just yet. Arkansas she might get on a personal vote yet

I do wonder if all of sudden Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire become critical.

Is Mitt Romney at 200/1 actually value?
 
Last edited:
Why do you spend so much time on this bollocks? It doesn't matter who is in the Whitehouse, as soon as they get in they are shown the secrets and whose really in charge and if they don't play ball they get taken out.
 
Euronymous said:
as soon as they get in they are shown the secrets and whose really in charge and if they don't play ball they get taken out.
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance, but who is "really in charge" then? Multi-nationals? Big business? Isreal? Some dodgy masonic lodge? Larry Flynt? Skull and Bones? Be more specific, thanks.
 
Last edited:
I read loads of stuff in my teens about this type of thing, but it drove me mad. If I want a good dose of paranoya I just watch the X - Files. :)
 
Last edited:
Aye. You're the shrewdie on here, Warbler. Is there not a good angle on the election, albeit a simple one, that Hillary Clinton is drifting to a backable price?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top