US Presidential election 2016

Bloomberg was 100/1 last week, 33/1 generally now

This Iowa debate is hilarious. Fox are panicking, their advertising revenues are expected to drop heavily as the payment formula is based on ratings. One of the more extravagant suggestions is $500,000 down to $125,000 per slot. As one commentator put it, "who wants to watch a Canadian and Cuban debating". Fox Executives are apparently targetting Ivanka (favourite daughter) to try and persuade Daddy to take part. He is now seemingly leading them a merry dance. It plays into his no one pushes Donald Trump around narrative, and that he's his own man who won't be dictated to by outside agencies whose primary interest is their own commercial greed etc so lets raise some money for the veterans who defend us rather than the Fox corporation

Cruz has now offered Trump a one on one debate and a donation of $1.5M to a veterans group! which is being widely interpreted as desperate (it's questionable as to whether PAC can be spent like that anyway). I'd read some nuance into this personally. It tells me that Cruz's private polling is confirming that he's behind in the state. He could potentially take the stage with the rest of the candidates, join in a group assault on the absent Donald Duck, and quite possibly emerge the victor on the night, but he's passing that opportunity up to try and face down the Donald instead. He's only doing this because he knows he needs to call Trump out. Carly Fiorina has asked for a similar audience with the Donald and raised the stakes to $2.0m (both candidates would muller him without the protection of a big group dynamic).

This is why its hysterical. The candidates are launching a bidding war to debate with Trump outside of Fox News'. Who's calling the tune all of a sudden? The Donald is the star draw here. All they're doing is reinforcing his cult in this clamour. All of a sudden he looks bigger than the party. As one person put it in social mediashpere "Trump the Presdient is scary, but Trump the candidate is fantastic"
 
Last edited:
I think Trump's refusal to partake might have a negative blowback on him. His refusal portrays a person of petulance and posturing. It also might suggest that he is fearful of reasonable questions from a journalist, and prefers to have a platform all to himself where he can spout his own agenda to a sympathetic audience like at his own rallies. A true narcissist. His "spat" with Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly is a camouflage.

Reagan back in 1980 also gave the Iowa debate a miss; as a direct result his ratings dropped from 50% to 26% overnight.
 
Far too many things Trump has done previously have drawn down predictions of error in judgement, but the story to date is that he defies all of them, often going onto benefit.

Governor Reagan ducked out for reasons of risk avoidance. Trump is refusing to take part over a point of petty principle (albeit he'll portray it as a gallant stand). Who is Megyn Kelly? sweet little blonde? or a face of evil Fox trying to dicate terms? The relationship between media and the political classes of America is already under withering scrutiny and viewed through the prism of deep cynicism. There are no shortage of voters who think that the big broadcasters already shout "jump" and the politicians only enquire as to "how high?". If he spins it right, he could get away with this. America will welcome a candidate prepared to stand up against media management

Personally I think Trump's reasoning is limp in honesty. Her questioning of him was perfectly fair, but as I noted a few posts back, this whole little episode encapsulates so much about Trump, the thin skinned, the bully, the vindictive. He'll claim he was vindicated if Fox's ratings fall. Of all the many disturbing traits he exhibits, its this continual use of approval proxy's (some of them extremely tenuous) and confusing these as evidence of factual vindication, that I find most bizzarre

The Ch4 programme showed a little snippet of it when Jeb Bush was targetting him and his only defence was "I've got 39, you're on 3 Jeb" - Jeb was actually higher and Trump was trying to goad him into say something like six, so that he could apologise and then further belittle his true figure. Bush didn't fall for that trap admittedly and just told him that he proved nothing and that he couldn't insult his way to the White House (in other words he'll have to engage with the substance eventually). By then though .....

It was widely accepted in the last debate that Trump put up his best performance. He's getting better at the format, but both Cruz and Fiorina would fillet him if allowed to launch one on one.

This one has legs, but I don't see how Trump can back down, and neither can Fox remove Kelly (nor should they). There was some rumour doing the rounds last night that CNN were gearing up to cover the Trump event (not sure they're allowed to? albeit they might call it a news item, in which they probably could).

Trump might have been able to turn this round had his justification not been so flimsy and pathetic. Just taking a look at the vox pops though stateside, and most of them are admiring of him for saying I don't need your publicity, and no I won't dance to your tune, who do you think you are. They're also starting to laugh at Fox who are getting the begging bowl out. Remember there's a lot of people who'd like to see Fox News bought down a peg or two as well
 
Last edited:
Just coming back to Bloomberg, he's a credible punt isn't he, even at 33/1 as a potential arb

So far as I can work out, he'll come into the picture if Hillary looks wobbly. If she loses the nomination, I think he'll stand for two reasons

1: Patriotic duty - he won't want the country facing a choice of Cruz/ Trump v's Sanders
2: He could quite conceivably win - There will be a genuine big middle ground. America aren't a nations of fascists, nor are they a nation of socialists

If we say that NH is lost for her already, and IA goes the same way, then she goes into the next round wounded. He might have his hand forced. Backing Bloomberg at 33/1 might be another way of backing Sanders at 7/4 for Iowa

If Ross Perot could reach 18% against a more credible field of Bill Clinton and an incumbent George H (and he was certifiable) then the better qualified and more electable Bloomberg must be capable of getting close to 30% against Trump and Sanders

Another market to consider is the Vice Presidency. As things stand, its his for the asking (or could be in a few months). The bigger question is does he want it? If he does, then he has a really strong hand. If all did was replicate Perot, he could play either candidate for a job of his choice. In fact he could play Clinton now?

"Hillary I want to be Veep, if you say no, I'll stand against you and you can kiss goodbye to your life's goal. If you say yes and renege, then I'll go public and stand against you as a Hillary Clinton is a dishonest liar candidate"

Now I'd like to see her sell that one to the Democrat party? He might very well be politically very close to her, and by no means incompatible on policy, but he did govern New York as a Republican
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Just coming back to Bloomberg, he's a credible punt isn't he, even at 33/1 as a potential arb

So far as I can work out, he'll come into the picture if Hillary looks wobbly. If she loses the nomination, I think he'll stand
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I think you're proceeding from a false premise.
If Hilarious doesn't win the nomination, the field will be (going by the potential scenario) Trump, Bloomberg and Sanders. In that fight, Bloomberg doesn't have a a hope of a chance, IMO. The right-of-centre American vote will be cleft between the Trump/Bloomberg camp (probably with the majority going towards Trump, if I were to call it), with the flipside liberal/leftist ballots going to the only alternative candidate -- Sanders.
I think the betting plays at the moment revolves around Bernie.
 
We can see on current polling that about 40% of the GOP is aligned to a so called moderate. Hillary's own standing skews the Democrat view, but there would likely be a third of them similarly aligned. Critically though, they'll be in states like New York, and the New England commonwealth

Trump's the most extreme candidate the US has had since George Wallace. "We'll bomb the shite out of ISIS", which perhaps isn't completely without precedent in that Barry Goldwater tried justifying the use of nuclear bombs in 1964

The last candidate to stand whom you could genuienly stick the label of a liberal on was Michael Dukakis. He got gubbed. Bernie is more left leaning than Dukakis, or at the very least, the same as him (given the shift in the centre of gravity).

The last Democrats who you might describe as having some semblance of Socialism or redistributionists to them were Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern, both were slaughtered

There is potentially a big chasm in the middle. There's enough room for all three rather than the traditional centerist squeeze

Trump = Farage
Sanders = Corbyn (probably not true - but humour me! - use Andy Burnham if it sits a bit better)

Either way, there would be room for someone like George Osborne on that spectrum, and there will be for Bloomberg if it comes to pass, but this is the big question .... if you can answer the IF question, you can make a good decision I reckon

Even at 33/1 though you don't require too much to still justify it. Bloomers is a sight more credible than Perot

However, I just don't really detect that he's managing expectations and the build up to an announcement in perhaps the way someone would be doing if they were leaning towards a run
 
Last edited:
Betting update then

Just spent about 90 minutes trawling (and getting lost in) various American political subreddits in an attempt to take the temperature. Probably read more opinions now than the average American pollster would pass off as a sample. God I wished I hadn't!

I've seen perfectly well reasoned and argued explanations with supporting evidence to indicate that Trump wins by a landslide, and equally sound justification for suggesting he's coming a well beaten fourth or fifth tailed off

There's only one thing that everyone seems to agree on, and that concerns the totally unproven nature of his vote. There's also a strong concensus (though not ovrerwhelming) that the absence of a ground presence is going to hurt him in a caucus (won't be so damaging in a primary) but he is probably going to suffer for lack of plausible and convincing advocates in meetings willing to make his case.

So we have a short price odds on, about an unraced novice who has reportedly schooled well at home? Anyone heard this fable before? Anyone know through experience what tends to happen to these sorts when they first race against some proven performers?

I think the value therefore is Marco Rubio 25/1 (Skybet) and a collapse of the moderate GOP vote all piling into one candidate. It might also be worth laying Trump for a place (or however you might place that bet). This is possibly the best chance you'll get. There is a huge question mark over his vote, and a fair amount of opinion being expressed (some of it very confident) that the whole house built on sand could come down very quickly. I should say that many of the people making these predictions openly admit that they've been saying this for months, and happily acknowledge he keeps defying them. They also admit that even if this were to happen, he could claim a moral victory of sorts given what he's already achieved!

I should say too there is a 80/20 view that Trump has likely made a serious error of judgement over this Megyn Kelly protest with Fox. Many of those suggesting this equally accept that they've said it before and been wrong, but this time he's managed to snub the voter in the process, embroiling them in what looks like a silly childish game. I don't detect there's any sympathy for Fox News, and had he chosen better territory to grandstand on he might have pulled off a major coup for the new breed, but he hasn't.

So there you have it. Trump to finish anywhere in the first five. To record a landslide. Or to be beaten out a place tailed off.

From a betting perspective, he's a very poor favourite in Iowa though, but stands a much better chance going right handed at New Hampshire

I can honestly say, I'm very confused by the Iowa picture. There are a lot of moving parts involved, and when this happens surprises occur
 
Last edited:
Just been catching up on this Megyn Kelly feud. Trump has today accused her of being a bimbo due to some photos which ended up in GQ a few years ago. He really has no class whatsoever does he. I know you say he bucks all the trends with regards to comments that would detonate any other campaign but surely any republican who alienates Fox News is on a hiding to nothing.

Just looking towards this debate tonight, although Cruz will be disappointed not to take on Trump again he can still use it to his advantage if played cleverly. Just calling him a coward for not turning up isn't going to cut it but some well placed comments towards Kelly will certainly help him with the female vote. In terms of debating he may find himself taking a back seat as the moderates rip chunks out of each other. I'd like to say it will be an interesting watch but with The Donald I'm not sure it will.
 
Trump did of course own the Miss Universe franchise for years so would naturally be revolted at the whole concept of a news presenter trading off her blonde hair and photo shoots

He also described katie Hopkins as a "respected columnist"

OK, I'm going to own up to having backed Rubio at 25/1. His was the name that was coming out of Reddit as the likely springer. The logic is there to justify it.

I'm persuaded by the explanation that lies in how the dynamics of a caucus works. Rubio has more people on the ground working the halls for him. He also has the tacit support of the establishment who can mobilise their local representatives to call in support in his favour. Sitting around in zero temperatures for 2 hours listening to local community leaders plead their respective cases is going to influence people more than a 2 minute secret ballot.

It's true that the moderate vote is being diluted amongst candidates, but so too is the right wing vote. I think the moderates might be nearer to settling on an accommodation as they've faced this thing for longer now and wrestled with it accordingly. I did say earlier that Jeb Bush might be the one who ultimately emerges from this wing of the party. I still think that's possible, but remember the observation was made on his money raising and hence ability to stay in the race rather than any waves he's making. He is also raising money consistently along the east coast. Iowa's one of these mid west type agricultural semi backwaters and needn't be his gig. It probably breaks better for Rubio

If there was such thing as an each way bet, I'd be confident that 25/1 (Skybet) is a steal. I can see some sort of accident happening with the right wingers though. Carson only needs to recover a few points to start damaging Cruz. Trump's support could be anything, provided it exists.

It's probably a lost bet, but I don't think he's a 25/1 shot. I don't believe Trump should be 1/2. That's madness for an unproven 2yo based purely on his own gallops work. I make Rubio closer to 8/1 and note that the Skybet price is an outlier. Hills and PP as short as 10's. Ladbrokes 12's

Rick Sanatorium won Iowa 4 years ago from a lower start point than Rubio, and Mike Huckerbee won before him (both are heading over to Trumps rally to support the veterans when their bit is finished rather than staying on for the main debate incidentally). At least Fiorina is saying its a cheesy stunt by Trump and she's not going to dignify it with an appearance (so expect her to show up as well)
 
Last edited:
A fascinating series of essays Warbler, thanks

As a betting opportunity its appeal is akin to a 20-runner Bumper at Bangor, though much more interesting

Really, I'm just hoping the Republicans manage to self-destruct thus making Hillary Clinton a shoo-in

What's happened to the Tea Party?

I've never been sure whether they are/were an official 'third' party or just a loose grouping of disaffected Republicans who decided to ridicule themselves by choosing a daft name

A Trump/Farage analogy would have suited that lot admirably
 
I'm given to understand that Tea Party 'issues' have slipped down the agenda. They were always judgemental christian social issues fillign a vacuum of a disorientated party anyway. They aren't felt to be as relevant today, albeit they still represent an influential wing. Someone like Ben Carson working the christian radio shows early was successful in raising a lot of money pluging into them, but as things like immigration and ISIS have moved to prominence, areas like gay marriage, and abortion are losing ground. Many of the prominent Tea Party leaders have also been seen to be bonkers! (something that was apparent to normal people within half a minute of listening to them for the first time)

A quick spin of last nights - (well whatever it was) - summarised as follows from social media volume and comment

The best debate yet (universal agreement) and largely put down to the absence of Trump trolling it

Carson = the big loser. Nothing to say. He can't win the nomination by being serene and calm. No substance there (trending would indicate Cruz benefits)
Cruz = small loser. Became a bit prickly, and wasn't always that convincing
Rubio = small winner, stumbled on a flip flop question about immigration, but all candidates had their bad moments. Otherwise convincing
Bush = big winner. Had his best debate but sense that it's too late prevails
Kelly = very big winner, universally regarded as the star of the show. Some saying Trump did well to duck her
Trump = No one knows? Allowed veterans to take centre stage rather than himself. Doubtless he'll be crawling through the ratings to justify things

Sense exists that a lot of Iowan voters haven't decided and only give it serious thought over the weekend but otherwise give reflex answers to half baked polls. In truth, they have had five different leaders of the poll in the last 6 months. There's clearly a lot of 'noise' in these polls, and bookies should perhaps be wary of pricing markets up based exclusively on them

In correction to something I wrote earlier, I'm now given to understand that Republican caucus's normally involve a secret ballot (though not exclusively). It's the Democrat caucus that conducts visible counts. I thought they both did visible counts. One suspects this is more likely to favour Trump, albeit he still isn't likely to have an army of articulate ground troops working the meetings for him

Also having suggested that Democrats can participate in a Republican causcus previously, I now understand you have to be registered as a party supporter, but this is really easy which is why perhaps people say you can. You just turn up on the day basically and say you've changed mind, then having participated in it and seen how dire it is, you change your mind back again a week later
 
Man I hope you are not pinning your decision making based solely on what you read on Reddit message boards. Regardless of that I'd agree with you that 25/1 for Rubio is quite a good price. I also make him around a 7-8/1 shot to pull an upset. Having said that I don't think it will happen. Where you have an 80/20 split favoring Trump hurting his chances by not showing, my research is almost the mirror image of that. The main reason being that he had nothing to gain from that debate and after watching Megan Kelly expose Cruz and to a lesser extent Rubio on the immigration issue along with catching Christie, with cold hard facts, on a blatant embellishment of what neighbors had stated about the San Bernardino shooters before their violence took place, it looks to me like Trump made the right decision in the short term.

Rubio could turn out to be the candidate that runs as the GOP nominee though because he looks like he might have crossover appeal. Trump is plateaued in my book. If he does somehow win the nomination then I see a bloodbath for the Republicans. I simply refuse to believe that there will not be a major exodus of Republican voters to the sidelines should he be nominated which would pretty much gift the presidency to the Dems even with such unsatisfactory options. I like Bernie (he punches in a different weight class to Corbyn) but there are segments of American society which he has simply not reached, African Americans and Hispanics for starters, which leaves Clinton. Once we move on to South Carolina and beyond her "machine" should be able to take over but if not and this turns out to be more contentious then anticipated then who knows maybe a brokered convention on the horizon.

As for some of your other points it is generally acknowledged that Cruz is all in in Iowa with undoubtedly the most comprehensive ground game and not Rubio. The turnout in caucuses is normally very low (120-130K) and if it is at those levels then Cruz’s ground game makes him the favorite but if it is true on the Republican side that Carson has 40 thousand voters lined up then this will make for some interesting dynamics. This would also seem to indicate much higher voter turnout which conventional wisdom has it will favor Trump. Sanders has basically conceded if he does not get a strong voter turnout. The Dems had a record turnout in 2008 of about 240K.

As for Michael Bloomberg, while America is not a nation of fascists or socialists, Hugh Hewitt one of the few credible conservative talk radio guys was on Charlie Rose last night and made a very cogent case for Bloomberg as a no hoper if he were to emerge as a nominee. The core argument being that five states where it is tight which all voted Dem last time would swing due to his tough gun regulation stance. Looking at Pennsylvania and Colorado as two of those and he has a very strong case. Americans love them their guns.

As to your quote that “Iowa's one of these Midwest type agricultural semi backwaters” Ouch! There aren’t actually that many farmers left in Iowa.

You’ll get a good indication of where your bet is going when Ann Selzer releases her poll results to the Des Moines register tomorrow evening CST.

This particular election with the Trump card and the accompanying squabbling with Fox News is fascinating entertainment; add a self-proclaimed socialist who is creating some real buzz and it promises to be a few memorable months ahead.
 
Oh there's no shortage of lunatics on Reddit, but the difference with their opinions and say those of lunatics arguing the merits of a horse race, is that their opinions can affect the outcome. I tend to use it to try and gague temperature (albeit you do get coegent contributions in amongst the morass too) You won't be too surprised to learn incidentally that quite a few Redditors claim to know what the Selzer poll is going to show with some tenuous inside line! (I did discount those from my thinking)

I'm not convinced that Trump will benefit for ducking Megyn Kelly. I think there has to be a decent chance that people will see through it in an age of cynicism, and there is of course the extended snub that Iowans might percieve, to factor in.

The early ratings suggest his rally fared badly against the debate (CNN cut away from it after 15 mins, talked over him, and then reverted to the studio). It's too early to tell what the fallout will be, but if Trump was a truly smart strategic political operator (and I'm far from convinced he is - I think he's a big mouth) he should have the humility to congratulate Kelly on moderating the debate as well as she did, and conceed he under-estimated her ability. He could reiterate his point that he doesn't believe that the political agenda should be set by broadcasters and reinvent this as his central objection (without losing face) and give her a commitment to take part next time Fox's turn comes round. At a stroke he could show contrition and draw any potential sting without having to expose himself to the grilling. Hell, if he framed it right he might even be able to present himself as a listening candidate who is both reasonable, and rewards people on merit. He won't do any of this of course

I can't believe that Cruz isn't going to cop some damage from not really having the support of the Iowan party fixers behind him, but its a bit like one of these terrible horse races where you can make pretty good cases against the field, until someone points out that there does actually have to be a winner

I tend to agree that the evidence is pointing to Trump plateauing at the moment, with the field as it currently is. Initially I estimated his support to have a 20-25% ceiling, (no science behind it, just a hunch based on societal observations). It's always possible that the correct figure should have been 28-32%? The orthodoxy at the time was he'd struggle to even hit double figures. What if my initial guess was right though? and what we've seen so far are protestors and apathetics who won't participate? Where does that leave him? We aren't talking about swing here, we're just talking about no shows, which is of course a very different dynamic. I don't think we've seen any evidence to suggest that Trumps support migrates to either Cruz or Carson. It's either there or it isn't?

By contrast (and it's not just in Iowa) you can see that Carson and Cruz both lend and take from each other as they seemingly rise and fall in correlation (perhaps God is the common factor?). If Carson does get a bounce, then I think he damages Cruz more than Trump. Trump once said the Bible is also a good book (when plugging one of his own books) and that's about as far as he's gone with that constituency

Bloombergs a work in progress with me. I haven't finalised where I think I am with him. I actually suspect however that Hillary will reassert and he'll keep out the fray, but the way this circus is going, who knows?
 
Last edited:
Try this by way of hypothesis (with all the health warnings that these polls carry as given)

The Iowan God vote as represented by Cruz and Carson has been worth about 35-38% since about November. It's a bit lower at the moment at 33%

Lets assume that Carson does get a bounce. He's been as high as 29% when Cruz was still in single figures, so there might not be too much downside left. Let's crudely give him 12-13% and then accept (which is a bit of an ask admittedly) that there is a relationship with Cruz and he drops to 20-22% (work with 21%)

The next jump we make is that Trumps vote might not exist. Let's say 1 in 3 won't show, and reduce him from his current mark of about 31 to say 21%

So we have some silly hypothetical hierarchy of;

Cruz = 21%
Trump 21%
Carson = 13%

and 44% in play

As things stand, Rubio is accounting for about 45% of what's left but showing signs of a late upswing (I'll stop short of calling it a surge). This would give him a closing in 20%

Oh bloody hell, this could be really close yet.

OK, (I'm) relying on three things

1: Carson to get a bit of a late bounce (not without foundation, but I'm damned if I can see what he's done to deserve it)
2: Carson to get a swing from Cruz (this has been a pattern, but again I'm damned if I really understand it, and can't dismiss coincidence as an explanation)
3: Trumps vote to fail to turnout (anyone's guess)

Rubio could still be value at 12/1

I can certainly see him first two
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a strong consensus among analysts that the snowstorm due to pass through Iowa on Monday and which is expected to dump six inches of snow will severely reduce the turn-out, and that it is the Trump vote that will be most impacted by this.

So there we have it: the outcome of the democratic process to select the next president of the USA will be determined by ...............the weather! :)
 
Doubtless a third of the electorate can interpret that as evidence that God diapproves of Trump!

We'll see what Selzer comes out with later today. I think the last time she ruffled a few feathers when Trump went crackers and used the poll as a launchpad to attack the integrity of the newspaper, it's falling circulation, and the fact that its a business that has to be cross subsidised (typical Trump logic) given that non of this has any bearing on the findings of her poll. In Trumps mad world the newspaper that commissoned the poll shouldn't be taken seriously because he's got more money than them
 
Last edited:
There are people on Reddit who will claim that they slept with Selzer to get an inside track on her polls results. Not my cup of tea but I suppose if one has enough time on their hands it is possible to find some real nuggets of insight in that swamp.

Using the words humility and contrition in trying to explain what might behoove Trump is simply a futile exercise. The guy is grade A narcissist and probably does not even know those words exist. It would be poetic justice if the polls were simply not capable of gauging voter turnout for Trump and the whole thing comes crashing down as some sort of Potemkin like village.

I've decided to have a little tinkle on Rubio at 14/1 with B365. The uncertainties surrounding this event make it a good value play (obviously 25/1 is even better). If Cruz and Carson actually do carve up the evangelical vote and Trump does not get the turnout for whatever reasons then Rubio could sneak in thru the backdoor. If nothing else it will give me a reason to closely follow the proceedings with a nice chilly Corona or two and a big bag of popcorn.
 
Warbler said:
Doubtless a third of the electorate can interpret that as evidence that God diapproves of Trump!

We'll see what Selzer comes out with later today. I think the last time she ruffled a few feathers when Trump went crackers and used the poll as a launchpad to attack the integrity of the newspaper, it's falling circulation, and the fact that its a business that has to be cross subsidised (typical Trump logic) given that non of this has any bearing on her the findings of her poll. In Trumps mad world the newspaper that commissoned the poll should be taken seriously because he's got more money than them
Click to expand...

Yeah he did the same thing with the Union Leader in New Hampshire. Tried to suck up to them in the late spring early summer and when they did not bite he disparaged them as a LOSER publication where circulation numbers are down etc etc. The guy is one trick pony albeit with several guises of the same trick. If Trump does somehow pull off this dog and pony show I'll seriously consider renouncing my citizenship.
 
Of all his percuiliar traits the way he falls back on approval proxies as a substitute for fact, is the one I find most unusual

Anyway, here's Nate Silver's much vaunted prediction toy for the anoraks (yes doubtless I'll have a go with it at some point once I've worked out how the damn thing works)

I'm given to understand however from those folk who have tried modelling what's needed for a Republican win is that the most receptive and rewarding group to target is the lower income white male. Much to a few folks horror, it seems to vindicate Trump

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
 
Wouldn't mind a saver on Cruz - Rubio - Trump in a tricast myself if there was a way of placing it. I wonder if my ZeTurf account will take it? You can bet all sorts of weird finishing combinations down to 6th place in France on the PMU
 
'Caucus' is a strange word and from what I can gather from the all-knowing Wikipedia of uncertain etymology. The pluralized form 'caucuses' is a recent introduction and essentially seems an unneeded tautology

Win, lose or draw Warbler, your in-depth and I feel sure midnight candle-burning research exemplifies the work required by a punter if he is to gain an edge and beat the book

I can offer no help other than to say that poor weather on polling day here in Blighty tends to be more of a concern to Labour than the Conservatives so if the white-out in Iowa materializes I assume it will be the 'working class republican' who will stay at home. Are they the Trumpers?
 
You over-estimate the grind. Most of its just reading the occasonal article that takes your interest (as you would any current affairs type thing) and then trawling a few of the social media platforms to try and gague what the mood is, as and when you feel up to it. I'll promise you, I've expended infinitely more hours exploring and trying to find an insight into horseracing. Ultimately most of us already have pretty enhanced views on the American political scene anyway, but the apparent beauty of this cycle is that the amateur is out performing the professional analyst. No one seems to know what's happening or just where the boundaries of the possible lie
 
Back
Top