US Presidential election 2016

We're into the speculation season, and journos are wont to write stuff that catches the eye in order to bring their own name into focus as much as anything, but Gingrich is credible I'd have thought.

All we know to date I believe is that Ben Carson is going to be involved in the vetting committee, so unless he goes all Cheney he's out the equation, and that they've allowed it to be known that Kasich is considered favourably

I think I'm also detecting a bit of a push back in the last 48 hours though about adopting what I'll describe as "an insult to my intelligence" candidate.

My own suspicion is that Trump will have more than one eye on the electoral college. Are there any candidates who can deliver him key states? Of the defeated candidates Rubio and Kasich are the standout choices. The question it begs though is how strong is the evidence that a VP secures the state in reality? Kennedy faced some pretty unique circumstances in the wake of the Dixiecrat schism, and putting Lydon Johnson on the ticket is widely regarded as having delivered him key southern states in what was a knife edge contest. Who was the last VP who made a substantive contribution to the result though (well probably Sarah Palin) but what I mean really of course who has delivered a key state that the candidate themselves wouldn't have been able to?

Of Rubio and Kasich I think the evidence points strongly to Kasich as being the more useful on the isolated home-state rationale. Trump had a half decent campaign in Ohio but basically ran into an impressive personal vote for the Governor. It seems to have made an impression on him. Rubio he'll reckon he beat fair and square, and probably thinks he can take Florida with or without him

The question I'd be asking if I were the Donald is could I get both on side, and into prominent roles, could they achieve a high enough profile and start influencing the outcome in their home states, without me wasting my VP pick on either?

Trump needs to be increasingly worried just how badly he's doing with Hispanics. Rubio might help him out in Florida here, but his pull won't travel much beyond the Cuban community. He won't resolve the Mexican deficit. There's been a fair amount of concillatory dog whistling between the two recently. The insults between them during the campaign were perhaps more silly than nasty. I wouldn't have thought the bridges were burned down completely as they are with Cruz or Jeb.

Susan Martinez hits the Hispanic button, and also helps address the gender issue too. I'm far from convinced she'd be able to flip New Mexico though given the depths to which Trump appears to have sunk. He has to be worried about Arizona now as well. He's genuinely in trouble there. Might he have gone too far already and be beyond salvation. Would he be better off acknowledging that he's blown this emerging group and double down on the rust belt. Might he even start to pick up a few black votes there even, if Mexicans are suddenly his scapegoat? Who knows?

I just don't see how Martinez is going to accept. She'll be denounced as a token from day one, and I doubt she'll ever be able to shake that off. It'll look like a clumsy stunt.

Kelly Ayotte will likely alienate the base and isn't exactly a big beast. Again, she's going to look lightweight; bringing a knife to a gun fight! The ticket doesn't look stronger for her inclusion. I just see Geraldine Ferraro all over again. That is to say a positive early reception for a week, followed by nothing thereafter

Jeff Sessions I don't think brings anything to the maths, and nothing which he can't bring through informal channels. I can see him occupying a position as confidante and advisor, but I'm not sure he really wants the gig (just a hunch). I think he's happy in the backroom pulling levers

Christie is Attorney General already, and Guiliani Homeland Security

Nikki Haley is a non-starter

We know Trump is a thin skinned individual (look how his 'team' slapping David Cameron down right now). I think it's most unlikely that he'll pick anyone who hasn't either endorsed him or been supportive (candidates who opposed him will be given a lot more slack on that score in line with what they had to do)

I think its probably Gingrich, Rubio, Kasich, with Scott and Sessions as outsiders, and Martinez possibly on the fringes
 
Last edited:
SlimChance said:
This article makes a good case to look elsewhere than a Big Don - Little Marco ticket.

Cab we ruleall of these now?

Chris Christie

Ben Carson

Marco Rubio

Newt Gingrich

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/727426
Click to expand...

Bloody hell!!! I'm starting to think like Donald Trump. To be honest, the article pretty well confirms how I assessed Rubio (but its just an opinion). His appeal is likely limited to Cubans, and with it therefore, Florida. The inroads he'd make on Mexican Hispanics would be very limited. Indeed, there is a tension between the two communities as teh Mexicans tend to resent the perferential treatment Cubans get. It could be that the Hispanic vote is already a lost cause, or damage limitation at best. NM, NV, and CO were never in the maths anyway from my own read, but losing AZ will hurt. He'll need to sort that out

The black vote is interesting. Clinton will boss it, but she starts on an incredibly high base virute of Obama. She might actually improve his vote, but instinctively you feel she shouldn't be able to. I suspect what we might see is turnout amongst blacks drop, albeit Trump might have a bit of scope to eat 2-3% into something which already close to 90% Democrat. Carson is actually from Michigan but I don't expect he has much political connection there, anymore than he is really able to reach out to anyone other than the christian community. His lifetsyle and income bracket will have long ago sethered the link

Trump might also take the view that Rubio doesn't bring him FL anyway. He has Rick Scott, and he himself isn't without influence there. In that regard Kasich and Ohio is probably more valuable, and there might be some cross over into other upper mid west states and the great lakes area. Critically, Kasich delivered Ohio and that will have made an impression on orange face. Kasich isn't a big beast though. He's better suited to a finance portfolio, and there is a bit of me wondering if Trump might start to rip up the rule book a bit and start announcing his executive board in advance? Who knows what he's capable of

I actually think he personally didn't dislike Rubio, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him involved or offered something in return for his support

I'd rule out Christie and Carson for certain. I'd still be inclined to leave Lil' Marco and Gingrich on the table.

One thing I would say about Trump however is that I'm reminded how he said he was through with Scotland, wouldn't have any more business dealings there and was going to pull his money out. About three months later he purchased Turnberry for £38M and is investing £200M in it (if you believe the figure)
 
Last edited:
Clinton playing the woman card might have a big say in who he decide to choose but really it's case of others getting behind him and you don't need to be VP to do that.

Ohio is a big player and again Kasich doesn't need to become VP for Trump to win there but he does need him to stand up and say he is right behind him

He's currently favourite and most likely but is he going to change his eating habits....he's less presidential than Trump on a bad day.

Crus may be a tough opponent but I have a feeling Trump really dislikes that man and he would rather have Dracula as a bedmate.

One nutter in the party is enough which should rule CC out.

Nikki Haley says she wouldn't take the job.........yeah right!!! she's a politician and lies as good as the next guy and will take the call if it came.

Haley or Kasich with the lady pipping him at the post because of better table manners but now Trump says she's not even under consideration

Newt Gingrich 12/1
 
Last edited:
Right, you navel-gazing wankers - what is the bet here?

GOP VP candidate is where I've been looking. Is Mary Fallin a bet at 33/1, given she is in a swing state, and may help with the female vote? Every time I look at this market, I figure Trump cares less about the GOP nomination (which is in the bag), and is looking at what might help him in the main event. Given his appalling position with women, I can't see how he can possibly win without Distaff representation on his ticket?
 
Grasshopper said:
Right, you navel-gazing wankers - what is the bet here?

GOP VP candidate is where I've been looking. Is Mary Fallin a bet at 33/1, given she is in a swing state, and may help with the female vote? Every time I look at this market, I figure Trump cares less about the GOP nomination (which is in the bag), and is looking at what might help him in the main event. Given his appalling position with women, I can't see how he can possibly win without Distaff representation on his ticket?
Click to expand...

Depends on the size of her tits
 
Grasshopper said:
Right, you navel-gazing wankers - what is the bet here?

GOP VP candidate is where I've been looking. Is Mary Fallin a bet at 33/1, given she is in a swing state, and may help with the female vote? Every time I look at this market, I figure Trump cares less about the GOP nomination (which is in the bag), and is looking at what might help him in the main event. Given his appalling position with women, I can't see how he can possibly win without Distaff representation on his ticket?
Click to expand...

He won't chose a woman he has Ivanka who is a great roll model for any woman. Hillary can play the woman card but banking on it will be her downfall.

The Trumps have no problem getting on TV and Obama can call it reality TV all he wants DJT has a lot more going for him than being a goldfish despite his hair being the right colour :0)

On one side you have the Daughter of Darkness 'Hillary Horse Face' who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the ass.

On the other side you have Trump who is a genuinely good guy but no one's fool.

The things Donald Trump said during and after being nominated were not made up to get votes.

He has been saying the same things for decades with no axe to grind about Iraq/Isis China bad trade deals Mexico etc. which at least proves he believes he can make the US a better country,
He has obvious deep feelings for vets and again it's nothing new 8 to 10 years ago he was given some award for contributing to a memorial for those who fought in Vietnam.

Obama got 95% of the black vote against McCain for obvious reason but that is hardly going to be repeated or I would have though Ben Carson would be the man but Trump is going to make sure Ben Carson gets plenty coverage as he is the one helping him find the right running mate.

Most of us are not American so understanding their chain of thought is not easy. I can relate to Trump and can't stand Clinton Husband Bill was likeable but he's way past his sell by date and having being impeached she'd have been better disowning him.

Talking of which it may come to pass Hillary ends up getting pulled up as the FBI are investigating.....of course that could be a cover up to say we looked and found nothing wrong.

They talk about values but thre's no comparison. On one hand you have the Trumps a good family who have never stepped out of line....at least never been caught.

Then we got the Clintons....Monica Lewinsky impeachment emails Benghazi "It was a you tube video", fook the coal miners....they are poison

Trump could have Damien 666 as his running partner and have much less to answer for at the end of the day than her.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Right, you navel-gazing wankers - what is the bet here?
Click to expand...

Rubio has pretty well ruled himself out this evening by insisting that he stands by his assessment of Trump's character, but also said that he'll support over Clinton, and that he's not going to spend 6 months on the sidelines calling Trump names. It sounded like he's campaigning down ticket, but also left open the possibility of doing a bit in Florida where he will have some leverage with the most crucial kingmaking demographic

Jan Brewer (AZ) is emerging as the dark horse

Trump says he's got it down to "5 or 6" (it must be one or the other surely) "experienced politicians"

One assumes that Kasich, Gingrich, Sessions, and Christie

I doubt Martinez would do it. Brewer is a half decent shout. Trump's got a problem in Arizona, and she might solve it

There's a poll out this evening for Quinnipiac incidentally that has the following in the three key states

Florida = Clinton 43, Trump 42
Ohio = Clinton 39, Trump 43
Pennsylvania = Clinton 43, Trump 42

Qunnipiac does trend republican by about 1% historically, and their sample has been questioned (its possibly over representing white voters) but given the week he's had, these are workable numbers

There are a series of others polls though showing support flakey in places like Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina. I wouldn't be shocked if he gets a scare in Texas yet. Strange things are happening and I think there's still a lot of protesting noise in these polls.

Trumps path is becoming much clearer (I'll get round to that later)

In other news though, Cruz has left open the possibility of re-entering the race!!! and Trump has revealed how he intends to pay off America's debt in 8 years. Remember he said he was going to run America like he runs a business? Well it seems that he's decided to apply his old trick of refusing to pay creditors and getting them accept a lower return on their lending. So Trump expects anyone holding a US bond to be settled at 80% .... suffice to say, this caused minor alarm bells on Wall Street as it became obvious he was proposing to nuke America's financial system. It might be that it's been explained to him since that defaulting on US Treasuries isn't actually a good idea, as 48 hours later he's walked it back a bit and is now proposing to print more money to pay off the debt

I suspect he'll ultimately adopt a more viking based route based on his "we'll bomb the **** out of them and take their oil". I've long held a deep concern that Trump sees the US military as an extension of his negotiating position, and will (if he needs to) apply the maxim of my guns are bigger than yours whaddya gonna do about it
 
Last edited:
What's Cruz said? :lol: Can't comprehend his reasoning for coming back to get beaten again.

Sanders beat Clinton comfortably again, I can understand people thinking Clinton would beat Trump easily if she wasn't limping a long race to nomination, but she's clearly just not that popular this time round.
 
He made some comment about re-entering the race if circumstances changed and he thought there was a path to prevent Trump's 1237. Some folk speculating the suspension was a hail Mary play to draw Kasich out of the race. I can't see it myself. If it was some sort of cunning plan, then the time to withdraw was today after he'd won Nebraska. There's enough delegates up for grabs on June 7th for him to do it theoretically, but he'd need to kill California in a 2 man race, and Trump still has New Jersey riding shotgun

I think the strategy really involved withdrawing, allowing the enormity of what's happened to sink in, and then re-engage for the first week of June and hope to snatch something in a 2 horse race against an under prepared and badly organised Trump

About a week ago Trump was wobbling a bit as a succession of yesterdays men queued up to say they couldn't support him. I'm not so sure however that the likes of Romney, McCain and the Bush family do him much medium term damage. Indeed, I think it could be positive yet as its out with the old and in with the new. If Trump was on message I'd have been inclined to thank them for their service to the party, and thank them for being magnaminous enough to clear the field of historic debris and allowing himself to build a new modern party unencumbered by them. He could also have used it as a way of reinforcing his message that the people have control of the party now, and that its no longer in the grip of the donor class that he'd bristled against earlier in the campaign. He should make some grandiose gesture statement and say I come before you at this historic moment to present the party to you, the people of America, and invite you to take ownership of it with me ... etc But Trump being Trump, is currently planning the convention and the giant self-regarding ego fest that this will turn into. It'll be worse than Maximilien Robespierre and the festival of the supreme being
 
Last edited:
A new poll from Reuters gives Trump a 41% against a 42% for Hillary.
Is the Trump train building a head of steam whilst Hillary's limo is backfiring a bit?
 
If Trump is now the only GOP candidate, and is a "certainty" for the nomination, then, why is his price 1.05 on Betfair?

The people at The Atlantic -- who educated us in the philosophy of Islamic State -- give their take on the betting markets as to how they relate to the Donald.
"The People Who (Still) Bet Trump Won't Win the Nomination"


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ill-bet-trump-wont-win-the-nomination/482148/
 
Cat's out the bag already Slim and I maybe had a lucky guess but your man is a moral certainty for VP.


Despite having bet him 3 times I can't remember his name..Gringe something?
 
Tanlic said:
Cat's out the bag already Slim and I maybe had a lucky guess but your man is a moral certainty for VP.


Despite having bet him 3 times I can't remember his name..Gringe something?
Click to expand...

You mean the guy that I put up at 10/1?
 
You might want to watch the market in the next 12 hours.

There is a story out tonight that is attributed to a Ben Carson slip that has revealed the short list of five names. Newt Gingrich isn't on it. However, I just don't believe it. To my mind this has all the hallmarks of an "authorised gaff" designed to misdirect (Christie, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and PALIN!!!!). The fact that Gingrich doesn't appear more or less confirms for me that he's the pick. However, the American media is running with the story for now so his price might drift yet

If you piece together what Ben Carson has been doing over the last 5 days, with what Corey Lewandowski is also doing and has said, I think they've gone a long way towards confirming Gingrich. I think Trump is going to adopt of strategy of sacrificing the Hispanic vote in the hope of doubling down on the white disaffected vote. It kind of makes sense

If you take this rogue poll the other day that gave him a lead of 55/45 with Hispanics (the one he tweeted on Saturday) and then applied this margin to Nate Silvers model, he would flip Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. Critically though, he would still lose with this result on the Romney map, even with the unobtainable target of 55% hispanics. The path to victory doesn't run through the Mexican vote. He still needs Florida, but that's Cuban. In other words there's no point pandering to the Hispanic vote and he can afford to alienate it provided he gets some kind of correspondign approval in the rust belt. He still needs to take Florida though, and still needs to ensure he hasn't left Arizona vulnerable, so he can't over do it, but there's little point in picking Martinez, and Rubio's use is only likely to be confined to a single state, which he might be able to secure with his support outside of being on the ticket

If you know that his pick is Gingrich then, do we start thinking about Hillary's choice? Is she going to risk sending Julian Castro into a debate against a chiselled old bruiser like Gingrich? She might have been tempted by Castro if Trump had chosen Rubio, but not now. She doesn't need to pander to the hispanic vote, but she could also take the view she only needs to win Florida. A strategy of Florida or bust is a bit dangerous though. Tim Kaine locks up Virginia, but I don't think she's in any danger there really. Sanders is a risk she doesn't need to take, as is Elizabeth Warren, who is probably more use where she is. Hillary's deficit is with young people. She needs someone who appeals to them, but also someone who can stand on a stage and achieve parity at the very least with Gingrich.
 
Kasich pretty well withdrew his candidacy last night, and left open the possibility of failing to endorse Trump! I'm not sure he can afford to do this mind you if he has serious ambitions for 2020. At the moment at least, Trump controls about 25% of the GOP voting primary who are pretty hard core loyalists and believe every word that comes out of his mouth. This figure might actually rise as #nevertrump members leave the party. Trump's might become the most sought after endorsement of the 2020 primary season. If Trump continues to have this kind of hold of the rank file primary, can the likes of Kasich and Cruz risk kissing goodbye to 25%? Can they seriously fail to endorse Trump and help campaign, and then turn round in 3 years and ask him to support them?

In other news, Marco Rubio appears to have gone mad with a bottle of scotch and a twitter account!
 
To update then

In the immediate aftermath of locking up the Republican nomination we saw the GOP establishment senior figures unleash their devastating broadside. As predicted though, it didn't amount to much. Basically (with the possible exception of Paul Ryan) it was led by yesterdays men and only seems to have driven wedge between the party and the base.

Democrats momentarily celebrated for about 10 days as a succession of polls emerged showing Hillary extending her lead and winning states like Arizona and tied in Georgia. This was the blue landslide they'd all told was inevitable then? Well as I said, it didn't last long. What we hear from them now is you can't take polls in isolation and its too early, as a series of new polls show Trump performing well in the key swing states. Within a week Trump had restored the lead both

Ohio +4
Pennsylvania -2
Florida -1
New Hampshire -2

In some other national polls he enjoys a lead, in others he's losing. Nate Silver is now hypothesising that Hillary's inability to put away Bernie Sanders is a drag on her, whilst Trump continues to do the hard man posturing having put away a more complete field before her. Trump for his part seems to be putting out a different policy daily (often in contradiction to what he said only a week earlier). It doesn't seem to hurt him. John Kerry was crucified for this flip flopping. Trump is much worse. However his supporters only need to listen for the bit they like the sound of. They seem to latch onto that. They then ignore the contradiction that casts it into doubt. It's pic n mix stuff.

This looks like a highly charged, emotionally unstable, low information, and increasingly paranoid electorate. Either that or American polling organisations are the world's worst and are simply flinging darts at a dartboard. It's not unheard of the see differences of 15% taken in the same period. Even from day to day you can see similar confusion. Even Italy doesn't generate this kind of volatility where you routinely see swings of 10% every week

At the time of writing, the three most recent national polls have the following (these were all reported within 48 hours of each other)

CBS/ NYT = Clinton +6
Fox News = Trump +3
Rassmussen = Trump +5 (Rass have a house bias and I'm prepared to downgrade them)

What's going on?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

I think the battle is becoming more complex than purely geography as it happens, and Hillary faces a very real threat that she's going to get caught out fighting a campaign of explanation. Once you find yourself having to explain to the voters why your policy is better than the opponents, you're very often in trouble

The other issue of course is that of the much vaunted Hispanic vote. Trump has a narrow flight path that allows him to continue to alienate this bloc so long as doing so brings him corresponding new low-information white voters. It's all about where these voters are concentrated.

One decidely ropey looking poll gave Trump a highly improbable 55/45 win amongst Hispanics. If you reproduce that result on the Romney map, Trump flips Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. Guess what though. It's not enough to win. In other words his path to the white house doesn't go through the Hispanic/ Mexican community. He can afford to continue to marginalise them just so long as he doesn't over-do-it to the point where he loses Arizona, or to the point where Latino Cubans in Florida come out in sympathy for the Mexicans

Now if you increase the Hispanic turnout by 6%, and allocate it exclusively to the Democrats, and do the same for the non college educated white vote, Trump wins. If you reduce the turnout for the black vote (the consequence of the other two groups increasing) Trump wins a landslide. This is because of where these populations are located. He can afford to lose places like NM, NV, CO and CA by bigger margins, as they're already in Democrat in hands, so long as he's gaining OH, WI, PA, and IA which on this crude extrapolation, he does

Now there is an obvious flaw in the logic. Just because Trump calls Mexican Hispanics names, doesn't mean that non college educated white voters are drawn into him like a moth to a light. There is likely to be a much stronger elasticity amongst the offended group. If you operate a ratio of 2:1 then, Clinton wins, (narrowly) albeit it doesn't take much for the college educated white vote to break for Trump to make this a knife edge win for him.

After I played about with Nate's state flipping tool, trial and error, I kind of hit on a ratio of 3:2. That is to say he can alienate 3 Hispanics into voting Democrat, so long as doing so gains him 2 non college educated white voters. If he achieves this, he wins, provided he doesn't overdo it and lose Arizona in the process. The key group (not for the first time) is the Cuban vote in Florida who can't be guaranteed to vote in line of sympathy with the Mexicans given historical emnity between the two, and that the Cuban has traditionally gone for the Republican party with its older members in particular disapproving of Obama reproachment with Raul Castro
 
Last edited:
Back
Top