US Presidential election 2016

Bernie WILL win the second caucus in New Hampshire. If I could get Evens about that, I would bet the farm. He's the senator for next door -- Vermont -- and the granite state is the most socialist-leaning in the Union.
After that, in the third one -- South Carolina -- and subsequently he'll be a struggler. But in New Hampshire, I make him a stone certainty.


Warbler said:
In other news, Trump now has this deranged wailing harridan in his corner

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzFNAoYGJ48

On any other planet an endorsement by this screaming banshee would be the kiss of death to a candidate
Click to expand...
Her endorsement should be a help to him in the Iowa caucus on Feb 1st maybe swinging a percentage of the large evangelical Cruz constituency in that State over to Trump.
After that, I can see the shrewd Donald distancing himself from her if the figures don't build.
 
She's useful to him in building the numbers for the nomination, but outside of that constituency she's a poor replacement for Tina Fey!

As you say though, she can get the evangalists going his way (not sure what Trumps real view on God is) can't imagine him worshiping someone else myself, but this is one area that is probably up for grabs again now that Carson is losing ground. Palin can plug into that insane vote better than Trump can. He just never convinces when he tries do the God thing

Her other benefit to him is being able to say the crass things that are important to his core, but which he's going to have withdraw from a bit as the field narrows and he needs to broaden his base. Dignity isn't a word you associate with Trump, but he is going to have to start coming across a little bit more statesmanlike eventually, so Palin has her use in being able to maintain the simplistic connection

Trumps got New Hamphsire sewn up, if he wins Iowa (having called the voters stupid in November for believing Ben Carson) then you really think he's going to win the nomination. He's strong in South Carolina and Nevada so could have four on the board. I think Florida is early which should be Bush or Rubio. If Trump wins there, then they're both out the race (albeit Bush's money will keep him in and potentially allow a counter-attack as the field thins). What used to be a very crowded field could become quite lonely very quickly with only Trump, Cruz and Bush left standing after Florida
 
Warbler,

What's your view on the polls in the US? Could we see a similar surprise like UK General Election last year?

I feel Cruz is more unelectable than Trump and that Marco Rubio is the most solid bet right now. How are you calling it?
 
American polls are notoriously unreliable, and their electorate more volatile and fickle. They use samples about half the size we use, and some of their methods are a bit questionable too (especially in the online sample)

I had a sneaking feeling that Trump might do well months ago, but it was based on hunch rather than data. The empircal was saying that he couldn't do. We missed the 100/1 and even when he first started to make headway he was still 20/1

Cruz has tried to shadow Trump without ever seeking to move through him. The logic is simple. When Trump self destructs, Cruz picks up his support. There is a problem with this gamble though. Why vote for the immitator when you can vote for the real thing? Trump has made at least a dozen gaffes now that would be damaging to a conventional campaign, but its becoming apparent that different rules apply to him. The assumption that he's going to self destruct was probably laid redundant months ago. If he carries Iowa (and he's well ahead in New Hampshire) you have to think he's going to win the nomination. Like we noted earlier, since the primaries/ caucuses replaced the convention in 1976, no Republican has ever got the nomination, who didn't win one of the first two states.

If you're looking for a betting angle, you might consider downloading one of these state by state predictors and trying to look at winning margins. If you can get Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida right, you won't be too far away. It's also worth looking at the next set of democrat swing states below these too. A lot of these broke for Obama in 2012 on relatively small majorities (2% or 3% swings). The speculative punt might be to bet for an international incident and make some of these states red and then go a Trump spread based on what the predictor tells you. It's still not the most likely result, but I don't believe its inconceivable at a price
 
Last edited:
Actually, the other thing to console yourself with if lining up a bet, is that so far at least, this particular campaign has made quite a lot of seasoned analysts look stupid. Even 6 weeks ago a majortiy of those asked expressed the view that Trump had no chance, and even those who were big on him suggested that the very most he could hope to do was win the nomination (and they were a minority)
 
Warbler said:
Actually, the other thing to console yourself with if lining up a bet, is that so far at least, this particular campaign has made quite a lot of seasoned analysts look stupid. Even 6 weeks ago a majortiy of those asked expressed the view that Trump had no chance, and even those who were big on him suggested that the very most he could hope to do was win the nomination (and they were a minority)
Click to expand...

I've always believed that the longer you bet the more you realise nothing is impossible. As we're not holding any Trump tickets we now have to decide if there is any edge in betting against him.
 
For the White House? No

The market will still be pricing up a Democrat win. The angle would be betting on Trumps vote, as a portion of that book has to be written off against him winning the nomination and creating value. It's why George Osborne was 20/1 to be the next PM with Miliband in the book

For the nomination though? the value might be with Jeb Bush, but I think he'll get bigger still before he starts a possible recovery.

Bush has the money and connections to stay in the race, some of the other moderates won't be able to absorb the hits. If this comes down to a moderate versus extremist shoot out, then Bush could start to garner the 'anybody but Trump' vote. There is also the genuine conservative Republicans who believe Trump is hijacking the party and turning it into something that it isn't, his own personal platform. Imagine what state the party will look in medium term once the personality cult of Trump leaves it? Party loyalists might be persuaded to get behind an establishment figure once the proximity of the election and implications of the result start to hammer home. I aslo feel it'll be too late by then, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Bush rally eventually as candidates drop out and he becomes the any port in a storm candidate
 
Try mucking about with this

http://www.270towin.com/#

One of the things you might notice about Trump is the way he continually invokes approval data to justify himself. The man seems to confuse opinion with fact on a regular basis. One thing this colour map brings home is the importance of Ohio and Pennyslvania.

If Trump calculates he needs both states to win (and he is strategic tactician and this is an unavoidable conclusion) then John Kasitch (born PA and Governor of OH) looks very attractive at 8/1 to be the running mate (provided Trump can persuade him onto the ticket). I wouldn't be shocked to see Trump put up R2D2 to be honest, possibly Tiger Woods, or in the finest traditions of Galigula, a goat! The scope is there for a whacky choice.

Vice President Ivanka Trump
 
Last edited:
I think it's probably time to start believing that President Trump is on the cards (OK, I'll qualify that by saying, subject to winning Iowa)

If he can win Iowa, then we'll get our first confirmation that his support is genuine, and not just protesting responders who'll baulk the first time they're asked to commit meaningfully.

He's well placed in New Hampshire, as he is in South Carolina and Nevada. I think Florida is next, which you'd think was Rubio and Bush territory (yet Trump is bossing the polls there with something like a 20% lead). If he wins there too, then the game is up. Only Bush probably has the resources to stay in the race. It might be too late by then, but might an 'anybody but Trump' candidate emerge? Trumps support seems to be about 35%-40%. An establishment candidate who unites the other factions could conceivably beat him. This is why the the Carson and Cruz votes become critical. If a quarter of them continue their journey to the right and break for Trump, he wins. If they row back, then a more unifying candidate might still enjoy a rebirth. Is Bush value at 10/1? I suspect he could get a bit bigger yet so would hang fire

Now I mentioned this 48 hours ago, but stumbled across an article since then which has drawn the same conclusion

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...owa_new_hampshire_and_then_run_the_table.html

But what about the Democrat you say? Well all of a sudden I think he can beat them too in a protracted campaign, because he seemingly possess a quality that few politicians have.

Trump is a bullying bombast. He is able to launch very personal attacks bordering on abuse that resonate with the voter. I'm not sure how he does this, but he seems to be able to belittle candidates from a position of superiority that gains traction. In a one against one shoot out therefore, this makes him formidable. America loves winners, and Trump can play into this. They also like the underdog who makes good. Trump isn't one of lifes underdogs, but he is an establishment outsider. He kind of ticks both boxes. Above all though, he has knack of being able to persuade voters that when he says someone is useless, they believe him, however tenuous or personal his evidence is

Let me give you some examples

Initially he targetted front runner Jeb Bush. He did a pretty good hatchet job on him, particularly over donations that Trump has made to Jeb. Jeb lost ground and has never regained it

To some extent his next target was Carly Fiorina. She's been about the best debate performer, and as former CEO of Hewlett Packard was another outsider. He managed to rubbish her though "who would vote for someone with a face like that" being an indication of the depths he was prepared to plumb. Now you might say Fiorina was never a serious threat but her quick bounce to 7% evaporated, and shes as good as out the race now

During this time he held fire on fellow extreme right wingers such as Ben Carson. Eventually Carson overtook him in Iowa which prompted Trump to do a number on the former neuro surgeon too. Trump poured scorn on Carsons back story, even calling Iowans "stupid if they believe Ben Carson". He maintained this for a couple of weeks and as sure as night turns to day, Carson's figures started going south, a position he hasn't recovered

Two weeks ago Ted Cruz overtook Trump in Iowa prompting the gloves to come off again. Trump launched a blistering bombardment of bullying attacks against Cruz questioning his legality to be President and playing up his Canadian birth. At the time of writing we're seeing Trump starting to open a lead again as Cruz's vote is responding and his numbers start going down.

Can he repeat this against either Clinton or Sanders? Well I'm inclined to think he can. I think he'd make mince meat of Bernie, and although Hilary has been round the block a few times, I doubt she'll be granted too much sympathy if someone starts serving it up heavy on her.

There is a pattern here. Every time Trump has gone on a personal offensive against a specific candidate, he causes them clear damage. This is precisely the sort of camapign that develops though once the two parties have chosen their candidate. I can see the figures that are currently being bandied about for hypothetical match ups changing. Basically the guy with the loudest mouth, and the one who delivers the best insults seems to finish opponents off. Trump could most definitely win a negative campaign and one suspects that the landscape this campaign is going to play out against will only add populist support for him as the situation in the middle east continues to deteriorate. Clinton has a potential record to defend there, Trump doesn't, and is more or less free to say what he wants

Provided he wins Iowa therefore as proof that his support is genuine, I think he could well do this now
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I think it's probably time to start believing that President Trump is on the cards (OK, I'll qualify that by saying, subject to winning Iowa)
Click to expand...
Except that, historically, winning the Iowa Republican caucus has proved to be a kiss of death for the presidential ambitions of the winner. :)
(The last two winners -- Mike Huckabee in '08 and Santorum in '12 -- faded into also-rans as the primaries progressed). So all is certainly not lost if the Donald fails to win Iowa; such an outcome might be a silver-lined cloud.

Re Trump; I'm holding an 11/2 docket about him winning the Republican nomination and am content with that, but I don't believe he can win a contest with either Clinton or Sanders for the presidency. The numbers as they stand just don't stack.
 
Iowa's picked winners as well. I wouldn't call it the kiss of death. What it will prove is that the Trump vote exists. There has been some speculation that its soft, and made up of protestors who won't participate. If it turns out that they're real though, the rest of the field have a problem. He should pick up the next three primaries and momentum will be with him

A lot of the reason why people think he'll lose to the Democrat though has been based on his disapproval figures. These still remain negative, but the gap has been closing in recent months as people get more used to some of his ideas and rhetoric. He's gone from being about -25 to -12. I expect that to continue.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating

Sanders will spook American's. Further more he'll force corporate America into backing and financing Trump.

Trump will out spend him, and paint him as a communist with no business experience etc who'll sell America out as opposed to himself, who is the arch international deal maker

Hilary remains a more potent threat but has as many skeletons as Boot Hill.

Trump's strongest voting demographic is a traditional democrat base (white, middle aged males, with poor educations). Hilary isn't as strong in this bloc as you think she should be. I can see him reaching this constituency and eating into a traditional democrat bloc. If he can get just a small swing in Ohio and Pennsylvania that might well be enough. It's why a bit of me wonders if John Kasitch suddenly becomes important to him? He covers both states, and is generally regarded as having done a good job in Ohio. I don't know what the personal relationship is between the two men though?

I think Trump will take Florida as Hilary ain't as popular as Obama there, and that tees up the three marginal states with the big numbers for him
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of ifs-and-buts in that analysis, tho'. At the moment, I don't believe that Trump will win a head to head with Hilary -- even with all the baggage she is carrying. circumstances may change come November, I'll admit, but as it stands ....................... :rolleyes:

Warbler said:
Iowa's picked winners as well.
Click to expand...
They only picked two eventual Republican nominee winners in the past thirty years however -- Bob Dole and Bush junior in 2,000. The other Republican nominees who carried Iowa were unopposed in their caucus's ............. Reagan and the Bushes -- father and son.
 
One of the more interesting things about that Trump approval tracker is one of the thumbnails below it which shows the Democrats have a negative approval rating. Obama by contrast has out performed the party. He normally breaks even, or a marginally a few points ahead

If you want an indication though as to just how volatile the American electorate can be take a look at Hillarys ratings from the same source

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

She's currently viewed less favourably than Trump in the last month. Combine that with the Democrat score, and you'd say it's difficult to see how she improves on Obama's 2012 result

I think a big part of this is due to the emphasis that American politics places on the candidate rather than the party. Hillary has a massive trust deficit, and I just feel there's a significant sector of society that doesn't wish to reward her with the White House. If you translate that into the key swing states that broke for Obama on quite small majorities, then a Trump victory is certainly foreseeable, especially since his message is resonating with a core bloc of flakey Democrat voters who are being seduced by his simple message of solving problems by hitting them

In other developments, there appears to be a grudging acceptance within the establishment that the games is up. Recognising that the GOP are going to the right, they seem to be suggesting now that Trump is a more palatable candidate than Cruz (certainly more expendable)

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/bob-dole-ted-cruz-donald-trump/
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I think it's probably time to start believing that President Trump is on the cards (OK, I'll qualify that by saying, subject to winning Iowa)

If he can win Iowa, then we'll get our first confirmation that his support is genuine, and not just protesting responders who'll baulk the first time they're asked to commit meaningfully.

He's well placed in New Hampshire, as he is in South Carolina and Nevada. I think Florida is next, which you'd think was Rubio and Bush territory (yet Trump is bossing the polls there with something like a 20% lead). If he wins there too, then the game is up. Only Bush probably has the resources to stay in the race. It might be too late by then, but might an 'anybody but Trump' candidate emerge? Trumps support seems to be about 35%-40%. An establishment candidate who unites the other factions could conceivably beat him. This is why the the Carson and Cruz votes become critical. If a quarter of them continue their journey to the right and break for Trump, he wins. If they row back, then a more unifying candidate might still enjoy a rebirth. Is Bush value at 10/1? I suspect he could get a bit bigger yet so would hang fire

Now I mentioned this 48 hours ago, but stumbled across an article since then which has drawn the same conclusion

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...owa_new_hampshire_and_then_run_the_table.html

But what about the Democrat you say? Well all of a sudden I think he can beat them too in a protracted campaign, because he seemingly possess a quality that few politicians have.

Trump is a bullying bombast. He is able to launch very personal attacks bordering on abuse that resonate with the voter. I'm not sure how he does this, but he seems to be able to belittle candidates from a position of superiority that gains traction. In a one against one shoot out therefore, this makes him formidable. America loves winners, and Trump can play into this. They also like the underdog who makes good. Trump isn't one of lifes underdogs, but he is an establishment outsider. He kind of ticks both boxes. Above all though, he has knack of being able to persuade voters that when he says someone is useless, they believe him, however tenuous or personal his evidence is

Let me give you some examples

Initially he targetted front runner Jeb Bush. He did a pretty good hatchet job on him, particularly over donations that Trump has made to Jeb. Jeb lost ground and has never regained it

To some extent his next target was Carly Fiorina. She's been about the best debate performer, and as former CEO of Hewlett Packard was another outsider. He managed to rubbish her though "who would vote for someone with a face like that" being an indication of the depths he was prepared to plumb. Now you might say Fiorina was never a serious threat but her quick bounce to 7% evaporated, and shes as good as out the race now

During this time he held fire on fellow extreme right wingers such as Ben Carson. Eventually Carson overtook him in Iowa which prompted Trump to do a number on the former neuro surgeon too. Trump poured scorn on Carsons back story, even calling Iowans "stupid if they believe Ben Carson". He maintained this for a couple of weeks and as sure as night turns to day, Carson's figures started going south, a position he hasn't recovered

Two weeks ago Ted Cruz overtook Trump in Iowa prompting the gloves to come off again. Trump launched a blistering bombardment of bullying attacks against Cruz questioning his legality to be President and playing up his Canadian birth. At the time of writing we're seeing Trump starting to open a lead again as Cruz's vote is responding and his numbers start going down.

Can he repeat this against either Clinton or Sanders? Well I'm inclined to think he can. I think he'd make mince meat of Bernie, and although Hilary has been round the block a few times, I doubt she'll be granted too much sympathy if someone starts serving it up heavy on her.

There is a pattern here. Every time Trump has gone on a personal offensive against a specific candidate, he causes them clear damage. This is precisely the sort of camapign that develops though once the two parties have chosen their candidate. I can see the figures that are currently being bandied about for hypothetical match ups changing. Basically the guy with the loudest mouth, and the one who delivers the best insults seems to finish opponents off. Trump could most definitely win a negative campaign and one suspects that the landscape this campaign is going to play out against will only add populist support for him as the situation in the middle east continues to deteriorate. Clinton has a potential record to defend there, Trump doesn't, and is more or less free to say what he wants

Provided he wins Iowa therefore as proof that his support is genuine, I think he could well do this now
Click to expand...

Much of what you said is on point, except that one thing has largely been missing - while Trump has done well in taking the offensive against others, he has also been pretty much spared to this point others taking that path towards him. Some of it came from the other candidates genuinely not respecting him early, and now it comes from them fearing alienating his base, a base they also need. But at some point it shifts from him being the hunter to the hunted, and the question for those looking to seriously invest in the outcome is how well he can hold up when put into a defensive mode.

The U.S. election cycle is absurdly long, in truth a travesty. It takes a lot of staying power to be able to hold up. One of the fears that Trump should have is that his particular core of support to this point may indeed be a fickle one, one that became enamored with his persona because of their frustrations with "politics as usual" in this country, but once the actual voting begins in Iowa, are going to see his candidacy under much brighter lights. Trump is fortunate in that much of his base is not going to read such things as that special National Review edition, but it will not be lost on others, and it provides a series of talking points that will begin to find their way into play.

It has indeed been fascinating to this point, but there has yet to be a single vote cast. What we have been sifting through is an exuberant media being able to get a lot of mileage out of what otherwise would have been a tedious cycle (imagine the lethargy had Trump not entered the proceedings). But once the votes start being cast the rules change, and there may be some intriguing plot twists ahead.
 
It's difficult to imagine that Trump doesn't have business skeletons having essentially made his money in property deals. The contradictions/ scandals of his personal life are also well documented.

He'll come under scrutiny, but ultimately you have to pick a winner. If it degenerates into a mud slinging comeptition (and there has to be a fair chance it will) I think he's better suited to this kind of street level politics than his opponents

The missing piece really is some firm evidence that his support is genuine, and not just non-participating protestors responding to surveys. The people who should know are the GOP. They must be taking soundings from their state, county, and precinct representatives, and I think there's a bit of evidence in the mood music now that suggests they're perhaps starting to reconcile themselves to the prospect
 
Last edited:
This is my favourite thread on the forum after the will win thread.Last time round I was adamant Obama was mortgage material -don't think there is anything as certain this time but there is enough knowledge here to dig out some nice winning bets.
 
Well you don't find too many markets where 100/1 shots come into 7/2

If you look at the Obama vote from 2012 you have the following

Florida = 50.1%
Ohio = 50.7%
Virgina = 51.2%
Colorado = 51.5%
Pennsylvania = 52%
New Hampshire = 52%
Iowa = 52%
Nevada = 52.3%
Minnesota = 52.7%
New Mexico = 53%

Now this is a bit misleading as there are fringe parties and independents picking up a few percent here and there, so you shouldn't extrapolate that you take these figures from 100 to reveal the Republican vote, but these don't require big swings

What would be interesting to try and model (and heaven knows how you'd do this) is the number of people in a states population who are white, male, middle aged, lower income, and high school educated. It's clearly a mistake to think all of these are Democrat voters, but probably not unreasonable to think a 5% swing could be achieved from those who might have voted Democrat previously but would be prepared to vote Trump.

OK you have start by taking the states population and removing everyone under 18. You might than shave off another 30% as non-voters, and then try identify the number of people who fit the typology described. From that take 2.5% off the Democrat vote, and add it to the Trump vote

From this you get a very crude (and I mean crude) guesstimate which could form the basis of a punt on the majority using the 270towin website
 
The Republican establishment must be tearing their hair out at the thought of Trump being the nominee. After their last defeat it was widely accepted that they would never get in power again unless they started appealing to certain demographics which are carrying significantly more influence than 50 years ago, such as ethnic minorities. However Trump has done his best to alienate the Hispanic and Asian communities with his proposed policies. If his support does convert into votes in those early caucuses I can see most of the conservative candidates dropping out to allow one unifying voice from that side of the party to take Trump on. Rubio is probably the candidate they had in mind when the party set their sights on those new demographics 4 years ago but I'm not sure he has the clout to take on Trump or Clinton.

Do you think Trump will have to moderate and backtrack his message somewhat as the race develops? His outlandish and controversial policies have got him so far but he's got to have one eye on the General Election.
 
Trump's rewritten the play book. He's possibly worked out (I think there's a danger that we can give him too much credit by design incidentally) that rather than compete for the ethnic minority vote and try to broaden the base, he could compete for the disaffected and apathetic can't be arsed vote by exploiting fear and appealing to some baser instnicts amongst Democrats disposed towards simplistic diagnosis and solutions. I'm not completely convinced this is somthing he thought out though. I tend to believe in the laws of happenstance in this case. I think he shot his own mouth off based on his own gut feelings, and his brand of demagoguery gained traction. He's basically said "this is what I reckon, who agrees?"

He can therefore afford to alienate hispancis, blacks, asians, mensturating women, women with harsh faces, women who use a toilet, and the disabled, provided he can more than compensate for the loss of their support with an influx of new support.

OK, keeping it to the substantive blocs he's isolating (as his women and disabled jibes were aimed at indviduals rather than a collective) the ethnic minority vote for the Republican party was always low. What he's doing basically is casting that adrift and saying you don't for vote for us anyway, so I'm damned if I'm going to dance to your tune.

In terms of tactics, Trump will be able to out source some of his more outrageous statements and behaviours to a growing band of freelance crazies. It gives him plausible denial if something proves a step too far. It allows him to use them as a weather vane for what might work and what might not and also keeps the sentiment in the public consciousness without him personally needing to run the risk of the direct association.

Having said that, there's precious little evidence he's bothered. This is a man who had the audacity to criticise John McCain suggesting that he wasn't a war hero because he got captured; "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured..... I never liked him after that because I don't like losers". Remember that Trump avoided the Vietnam draft on five separate occasions by disappearing into college courses. When after graduation in 1968 he became available again, he managed to obtain a medical disqualification for previously undiagnosed bone spurs in his foot. Despite this, he's actually had the front to stand there in a debate and tell the audience he's the only candidate with military qualifications!

He doesn't have a large army of advisors and his entourage is largely made up of body guards rather than spinners (check out his travelling adviser/secretary - her name is Hope Hicks!). I suspect the chances are he'll continue to shoot from the hip, and so far at least, every time he does, his ratings improve (ratings are something that Trump obsesses on, and uses them as evidence to prove fact). That is a worrying trait in my opinion

The damage was done to the Republican party when they lost their bearings in the immediate aftermath of the cold war. They could no longer campaign on anti Soviet foreign policy and feed the paranoia of things like the Un-American Activities Committee. They were essentially a ship with a broken compass and no steering and went in search instead for cranky subjects such as gay marriage, Wade v's Roe, and of course allowed religious extremism to take a big hold of the party. When the big top top falls down, the crowds go to the freak shows, and on the fringes were novelty attractions like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (history might add Trump to that list yet)

I always felt that Trump would do better than just about all the analysts who get paid good money to know these things were saying. I never considered his candidacy a 'joke' or 'side show' but I didn't really see how he was going to advance much beyond 25% which was my guess as to how much latent nastiness lay in the GOP. It was in early December that I began to realise he might be going to win the nomination, and its only in the last 10 days (subject to the vote being proven) that I'm coming round to the idea that he's going to win the whole shooting match

This kind of pulls me round to the unified moderate wing. With 200 years behind them, this did seem like the most obvious outcome. Trump to ruffle feathers, Trump to get to about 25%, perhaps a couple of rogue polls will give him 30%, and that's his ceiling. As the other candidates drop out, their support doesn't deflect to Trump but starts to migrate instead to the last establishment figure standing. Trump is beaten into second place for the nomination was my initial read of his candidacy (which would still be a whole lot better than most pundits who never thought he'd get beyond New Hampshire were saying).

I don't know enough about Marco Rubio's war chest, but I'd be surprised if his pockets and reach were as deep as the Bush machine. For this reason, I thought Jeb was the most likely to come through the field by virtue of being able to stay in the race the longest. The 'Bush' name is still toxic though. Jeb doesn't use it in campaigning. More importantly though, the Republican hierarchy probably realise that Jeb Bush can't attract Democrat voters. In other words, he'd lose to Clinton.

The problem now though is that those moderates have probably left it too late already. Only Jeb Bush's wife has been prepared to call Trump out. Collectively, they look weak for not having stood up against him earlier.

It's a double whammy though. The ethnic minority voters the party wanted to reach out to by way of building a broader base have been so alienated by Trump in the last 6 months, (and the GOP by both association and extension) that they're already lost to the 2016 cycle. The roof has completely collapsed on their broad church strategy. Trump's boxed them into a corner. To improve on their 2012 they need to find a bloc from somewhere, and Trump has (perhaps by accident) corralled them. The only substantive transient group left are, low income, below average education, white, middle aged, male, Democrats.

That's the great trick folks. Only Trump can reach this bloc of voters capable of adding to the Republican scoresheet. Trump can also potentially mobilise new voters who've previously never bothered, and take a few voters from a traditional Democrat pool that Hilllary has never really won over. He's their best chance, because he's probably succeeded in alienating those voters who his opponents could reach

If you scroll back a few pages, you'll find that piece from the DRF that Slim copied (unless he really wrote himself?). About three quarters of the way down the page, they've latched onto this, and have been able to take it a step further than I can by naming the states where this constituency of voter is more prevalent. IIRC, both Ohio and Pennyslvania were on it? If he can carry both, and I'm prepared to concede he'll win Florida, then he's well on his way to emulating Foinavon
 
Last edited:
Brilliant stuff Warbler, a great read.

It's worrying to think that a politician can gain so much support in the western world through fear. If this underclass do decide to vote for him it's going to be difficult for any opposition to change their mind through reasoned debate and sensible policies. As soon as this pitchfork mentality sets in the only way to stop it is to discredit their leader which probably means its going to turn into a mudslinging frenzy.

Where does Trump stand on the religious front? As far as I understood it any potential republican nominee is heavily reliant on the support of very influential religious organisations. Are they that enthused about aligning themselves with such a controversial candidate?
 
I don't think its an under class vote (sounds dangerously 1930's German) or what the American's call "white trash", I think it's C2's and D's. These are people who have a bit of something, but that's all they've got. As a result they're paranoid about hanging onto that something. They're also particularly receptive to the message that all their ills are someone else's fault, and Trump has created a veritable army of bete noir bogeymenwhich he reinforces with all sorts of sinister threatening forces lurking in the dark (some genuine, some imaginary)

As regards his religious beliefs, he is of course the very manifestation of the parable of the golden calf. So far as we know he's not a believer, and since he only worships himself it would be difficult for him.

The religious lunatics have also managed to mangle a narrative that allows them to believe in evolution and God. That is to say God created the building blocks that allowed life to evolve. Others have taken this a step further and suggested that God created the Big Bang. It always strikes me as strange that a country that owes so much to science has whole swathes of its population actively bought into this nonesense

Quite a few of the candidates are a little bit ambigious on religion. All of them know they can't afford to tell truth, but most of them duck (albeit the likes of Carson, Huckabee and Santorum are fully paid up creationsist I think)

This is where the Alaskan banshee can potentially help him out

I think an issue that might eventually play a part in this down the stretch is actually climate change!!!

I've been playing about with my 270towin predictions and have it all coming down to Pennsylvania (coal mining). Trump's a denier, and actually thinks the whole thing is a giant Chinese conspiracy to undermine American industry. Hillary's luke warm but its the Democrats who are most associated with clean energy and she could face an issue in Pennsylvania. It certainly worried Obama but he carried the state in 2012. Mind you, set against that we have Nevada in play who've been caught up in recent water shortages associated with record west coast temperatures
 
To be honest Warbler, a lot of Trump's rhetoric sounds like 1930's Germany which is what worries me. He's using divisive policy to drive a large wedge between communities which is exactly what the Nazis did. Hopefully the country comes to its senses and realises this man could potentially have his finger on the button. Surely that's enough for most people to hesitate before they put an X in the box.

This programme on C4 Tuesday evening will be an interesting watch.
 
His view on the doctrine of 'exceptionality' isn't known (Sarah Palin you might recall had famously never heard of it!) but I wouldn't be surprised if he proves to be a lot more isolationsit than people imagine. With the exception of ISIL, I can see him taking his ball home rather than trampling all over the world. Trump's got a very thin skin, and doesn't take criticism very well at all. Some of the bleating about America (especially from Europe) is more likely to cause him to say feck off and sort it yourself then if you don't like what we've been doing.

I think the early clues are there to support the suspicion that he could well start to use the US military as a foreign income earner (borderline mercenary at its worst). He's already told the South Koreans that if they want to continue to fall under the protection of the USA, they can start paying a lot more for it. Next time David Cameron asks the Americans to look for Russian submarines off the coast of Scotland, don't be shocked if it comes with an invoice! I suspect he'll reckon he can broker a deal with Russia and reduce the American commitment to NATO and probably retreat back across the Atlantic and say stuff the rest of you, I'm concentrating on defending myself

I'm not sure he's necessarily going to be a military expansionist, but I wouldn't like to say what he might do regarding ISIL. He's already said he'll "bomb the **** out of them" and I suspect he will (along with Putin) after that though? Remember that he's been critical of both Dubya and Obama for intervening in Iraq and Libya. He said they should have left the dictators in charge to kill the islamists and let the countries wallow in their own shite. I honestly don't think the signs are there that a President Trump is going to start throwing military weight around unless it directly impacts the US. He's not someone I sense you'd want to rely on as an ally.

A potential flashpont concerns the Saudis. Trump, so far as we can gather, isn't as enamoured by Saudi Arabia as American Presidents have been previously. The Saudis were pointedly asked last week about their own nuclear ambitions and were very evasive, saying that the only things that aren't negotiable are their faith and their security. It's widely believed that Pakistan has parked nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia as an additional deterrent against India. Remember the Pakistani's are hand in glove with the Saudis, even to the point where they name one of their major cities after some medieval Saudi despot I believe? (Faisal). It was a comment that earned a very gentle rebuke from John Kerry about proliferation consequences, but it was limp (to put it mildly)

There has to be an enhanced possibility that an escalation will transfer to the streets of Europe thanks to that mad mongoose Merkel, and equally the US might say you let them in, you're on your own. Trump has been massively critical of Merkel, describing her as someone who was "wrecking Germany".

We're starting to see reports seeping out now from continental Europe of ISIL sympathisers looking to set up poisoning offensives through the food chain (its consistent with the prophets poison the wells doctrine). So far as I can gather (and it's only Reddit which compiles clippings from European media) Syrian refugees are identifying ISIL sympathisers who have established eateries in major European cities - who knows where it starts and ends? Hysteria? possibly. Is it feasible? well probably. Is it true? your guess is as good as mine
 
Last edited:
Back
Top