US Presidential election 2016

pdleech said:
Both Trump and Cruz are polarizing candidates and it probably isn't any coincidence that however many times Trump tops the polls he never achieves more than 35% of the vote - it is highly likely that there is a very definite upper limit to the amount of votes he can get
Click to expand...

This upper ceiling argument is the one thing that the 'get Trump' majority keep clinging to, and in fairness, it's the most persuasive of all the arguments.

It does perhaps need breaking down a bit. In the first case all candidates have an upper ceiling. Trump as you say has shown his to be a 35%. I initially speculated that he could reach 20-25% of American's with his 'nasty' agenda. So far his figure has pretty much been the exclusive preference of Republicans. He is likely to have some Democrats to whom he could appeal, but not on the same scale as he could the right wing zealots of the Republican party. Given that they broadly constitute about half the nation, my 20-25% might not be far off the money

I think however there is an important factor here, and that is Ted Cruz. Basically both Trump and Cruz are pretty much fascist, but between them they exhibit different types of fascism. Trump's is perhaps the more European type, which is grounded in nationalism, and wrapped up in patriotism in order to sell to the American people. Cruz is an evangelical fascist, which in itself is much more an American creation, albeit it has shadows in the middle east where a cult of superior theology and doctrinal instruction characterises societies. The crux of the issue is that between them they tend to garner 50-60%, giving the fascist wing of the Republican party a theoretical edge, which the moderates can't do anything about for now. I'm not sure where Carson fits on this, he might add a few points to it as well. I'm not so sure he's quite as fascist as the other two though. Anyway, humour me, as this is an area I tend to be guilty of under-estimating.

In Europe we are perhaps more in line with political philosophy than the American's. In America the cult of the candidate is more important than the party. It's really the legacy of the systems. Therefore I tend to be guilty of assuming that if one fascist candidate were to withdraw (say Cruz with 20%) then the rump of that would transfer to the alternative fascist, in this case Trump, and his ceiling now becomes 50%+. However, what I'm tending to fail to grasp is that the identification with the theological fundamentalism, is stronger than the political fascism, and that a lot of Cruz support would probably drift towards the nearest christian alternative (Rubio), albeit Trump would pick up some and possibly raise his own upper threshold to the low 40's

I'm trying to see if there's a scenario that has these three left standing as follows

Trump = nationalist fascist
Cruz = evangelical fascist
Bush = not a fascist

(use Rubio interchangably with Bush if you prefer)

By the time this has happened Trump should have a delegate lead. The big test for Cruz comes in Texas on March 1st with 172 delegates up for grabs. This is a winner takes all state if the winner manages 50% or more. If they don't, it divides proportionately. If Trump can stop Cruz getting the 50% then he looks to hold the whip hand, as the next big winner takes all is Florida (72 delegates) and Trump has a commanding lead of over 20%

Basically by then the two fascist candidates could be so far ahead of the non fascist candidate, that there might not be much they can do about it. If the GOP establishment is faced with the choice of throwing in behind one of Trump or Cruz, which way do they dive? Trump's ceiling is over 50% now

All things being equal Trump is on to win South Carolina. Rubio, the great hope could conceivably have form figures of 3, 5, 4 by then. The Nevada caucus becomes critical for him, but no one has polled this for ages. If he doesn't breakthrough there, then he's not won any of the first four states. He really is having rewrite the history book
 
SlimChance said:
Cruz 5 points better than Trump nationally. Really?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/polls...ss?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=TWSAutoTweet
Click to expand...

Actually this is something I failed to pick up on in my character post on him. Trump is someone who observes the doctrine that if you tell a big enough lie enough times people start to believe it (Goebels). He just brazenly makes stuff up sometimes. He's consistently telling people that he out scores Hillary in hypothetical head to heads. He doesn't. In fact he's about the worse performing candidate of the lot. But here's the rub, more people will see Trump making these outrageous statements on Fox, than will trawl through RCP to dig out the data (a lot of which is pretty poorly compiled)

I should also say that of all the things Americans pollsters sample, I think these hypothetical head to head match-ups carry the most noise. They're notoriously unreliable and incredibly fickle. Responders are much more inclined to use them as proxy protest instruments as they're answering hypothetical 'what ifs' all the time. It's a shame you can't lay their findings for money, as ultimately there's only one match up that can ever occur.

In Ted Cruz we are talking about someone who wants to carpet bomb in the middle east, even more refugees heading our way and not America's, and said on Dec 5th, 2015 "I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out"
 
Last edited:
I'm shocked by the fact that one of the children appears to be off asian extraction, yet the two parents are white, and doubtless good bible reading types. Surely Senator Cruz isn't promoting divorce, a bit of infidelity for the wifey, mixed marriage (assuming they're married, they could be living in sin) - we need to know!

I'm surprised actually how little attention Cruz has been given by our own media in preference to Trump. Whereas the Donald is worrying (largely due to his temperament) Cruz is darn right dangerous, much worse!
 
Last edited:
The level of insight, eloquence and opinion on this site* puts the American commentators to shame; ironic that I come here to learn and get intelligent observations!

* Although I'm not surprised given the quality of the horse racing discussions (with a few exceptions, of course :))
 
SlimChance said:
Cruz 5 points better than Trump nationally. Really?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/polls...ss?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=TWSAutoTweet
Click to expand...

The weeklystandard is an archconservative magazine similar to the National Review. These guys don't want Trump. Cruz aligns much closer to their "conservative" values. Looking at the Realclear data in a bit of detail what springs out is that in both head to heads the Fox News poll is the only one where Cruz and trump have an advantage, plus it's dated more than a month old. A cynic might see these Fox polls as Murdoch pushing his aganda as he is also a known Trump "despiser". I agree with Warbler that these head to heads are way too fickle at this point in time.

I'll be in Cuba for the South Carolina contest and get to see true socialism up close and personal. I'm pretty sure they don't have Fox News there.
 
In a funny sort of way, I was only thinking last night that in line with the laws of unintended consequence, the Republican party has become something of a hostage to Donald Trump. All of sudden he could be the establishments saviour!!!

The one candidate they dread above all others is Ted Cruz. The only thing stopping Cruz at this moment in time is Trump. The Donalds support is largely nationlist with fascist tendancies. He's built his campaign around jingoistic xenophobia and laced it with lashings of patriotism to make it palatable. If the people who've signed up for this suddenly found that their totem was removed from the campaign where would they pitch up next? I suspect they'd gravitate to the next nearest fascist, in this case Cruz, and be prepared to look past his evangelism as unfortunate, but a compromise they could justify in order to make sand glow in the dark

So take Trump out the race, and Cruz suddenly has something in the region of 50% of the vote with Rubio the nearest challenger on something like 15%. It's all over. Cruz is your nominee

If Cruz were to drop out though, his evangelical fascists, because they identify with faith before nationalism, aren't quite so certain of finding a new haven en-masse. Some will go to Trump, but one suspects a lot will transfer to the next Godist in line, probably Rubio

It's crazy, but the anti establishment Trump, is the only thing saving the establishment at the moment. Trumps got a pretty strong hand if he wants to start playing poker with them

Incidentally Brendan, don't be too shocked if you discover sand, sea, socialism and rampant minimum wage prostitution in Cuba
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
However, what I'm tending to fail to grasp is that the identification with the theological fundamentalism, is stronger than the political fascism, and that a lot of Cruz support would probably drift towards the nearest christian alternative (Rubio), albeit Trump would pick up some and possibly raise his own upper threshold to the low 40's

The big test for Cruz comes in Texas on March 1st with 172 delegates up for grabs. This is a winner takes all state if the winner manages 50% or more. If they don't, it divides proportionately. If Trump can stop Cruz getting the 50% then he looks to hold the whip hand, as the next big winner takes all is Florida (72 delegates) and Trump has a commanding lead of over 20%
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate Trump with evangelicals. Iowa polling data shows that he was 2nd with that group well ahead of say Carson and in NH he actually won with that segment. As for a drift towards Rubio he could be toast by that time such a scenario comes into play. The big test you describe on March 1st is actually bigger than just Texas, while acknowledging that Texas as Cruz's home state offers the biggest bounty (delegate count there is 155 not 172). In addition there are another seven states with 302 delegates available based on the winner take all at 50% or more. March 1st should be the watershed moment for most of the candidates still standing. I can see there being at least five combatants still fighting it out at that time, Carson is a name your number no hoper in this equation and should just exit left gracefully.
 
pdleech said:
The level of insight, eloquence and opinion on this site* puts the American commentators to shame; ironic that I come here to learn and get intelligent observations!
Click to expand...

There are more than enough insightful and eloquent American commentators if you get past the grandstanding of Fox, talk radio and most of their acolytes.
 
I thought I'd take a look at the VP markets again, having flirted with Tim Paine, and since come out of the idea due to lack of what I'll call chatter surrounding him. At face value his place in the market looks like being the creation of the UK bookmaking industry as I've yet to encounter any American enthusiasm for the selection, come to think of it, his name never appears on any shortlist

The two names that keep coming back time and time again are Julian Castro 5/2 and Cory Booker 20/1. I'd say they account for two thirds of people's quick fire answers I'm seeing across social media platforms. Even those who nominate alternatives seem to do so in the spirit of looking for contrary views to spark conversation.

Now I confess to knowing nothing about Booker, but his is the name that seemingly attracts less downside. Castro, depsite being favourite, is held b y some to carry the same risks as Sarah Palin as being a bit lightweight. Also his price seems to be an over reaction to a comment Hillary made about him being talented and someone who she would be looking at. I can't remember Hillary's precise quote, but when I read it originally it was just as capable of being interpreted as a cabinet position or some other role, but people immediately extrapolated that he was a VP candidate. It's also worth noting that she could hardly turn round and slag him off, what was she supposed to say? I'm not sure that Booker is significantly more experienced than Castro, but he seems to have cut more of an impression.

I wouldn't fancy Castro against Rubio either, should some form of that match up take place. He could damage the attraction of the ticket as he'll likely be viewed as Rubio lite

At 20/1 then I'll take a chance on Booker blind. His name just keeps cropping up

The evidence isn't necessarily conclusive, but the trend is for candidates to use the VP to balance the ticket. Booker is young and male, with a bit of ethnicity to boot, Hillary ain't!!!
 
Last edited:
brendanr said:
I think you underestimate Trump with evangelicals.
Click to expand...

I think you'd be more accurate to suggest I just don't understand this bloc at all!!! - I don't - I just don't get it. I read someone referencing a poll recently that said 50% of American's would never vote for someone who identified as an aethist!!! Yeah - i think that's one big no, no, with me too, I mean how could you ever vote for someone whose come down on the side of science

The only time I can recall Trump doing God was when he compared 'The Art of the Deal' favourably to the Bible.

The only thing he's doing, and he's doing it well, is that he's presenting himself as the defender christianity rather than as someone who is a paid up member of the God squad. In fairness, he can hardly spout the christian values with his own personal life history laid out for anyone to examine. Instead he's reaching out to them through demonising islam as an existential threat to them, and playing the role of the crusader

Incidentally, the first post NH poll for SC has just come in (it's pretty much as before)

Trump 36%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 15%
Bush 11%
Kasich 9%
Carson 5%
Undecideds 5%

The second preference data has them pretty well tied. No one gets more than 20%. Trump's in third on 16%, but Cruz on 17% and Rubio on 18% aren't making any dents

I did note that only 8 black people were surveyed and that the sample is badly out of line with the state demographic (even GOP supporters).

Carsons fall of a few points is in line with expectations. Kasich hasn't really got a massive bounce but then he was very low in SC so its definitely there too? Perhaps its his turn to inherit the mantle for a bit, but then again its perhaps nothing that couldn't be explained by Christie, Fiorina, and Paul dropping out since it was last polled. I'm probably going to take the contrary view to most and suggest that Rubio is big winner on this data, as perhaps its suggesting that his **** up in the NH debate, might be restricted to NH?

America Risings latest attack ad against Bernie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3T73DVZg824&feature=youtu.be
 
Last edited:
Well having suggested back to lay bets of Kasich at 40, and Bush at 18, I was anticipating getting out of Kasich before South Carolina. I'm not so sure now. He stands a chance of going past Bush which would be massive given that he's not working the state and is seemingly concentrating on the north. If Kasich can start picking up 9-10% in states in which he's doing nothing then he's clearly setting out his stall to try and go for the winner takes all northern states at the back end of the campaign. This would seemingly commit him to the duration. Bush might be the one who is persuaded to fall on his sword first, but its going to be real climbdown for him

I think there might be a betting angle here, as he's going to lose SC and NV and won't break through in super Tuesday either, (but might get a result in MA and MN) his price will drop out again.

I read a couple of articles recently (both palusible and both passionately argued) that the Trump and Cruz axis still has no chance, and that the winner is coming from Bush, Rubio and Kasich. Equally I read one that said that the establishment had better find a unity candidate to get behind by super Tuesday or it could be too late, and if they don't (the author doesn't expect them to) then they had better start getting used to the idea of Trump winning the nomination. Even if two of the three do drop out after March 1st, there is no guarantee that they could stop him

Who would be? Rubio is still the obvious choice in my mind. At the very least, if he stays in it probably puts a ceiling on Cruz. Lets not forget that Cruz would be the establishment nightmare, and that Rubio's vote is probably the one more likely to migrate to him

But it's quite possible that Rubio hasn't carried a state by March 1st. Trump is miles ahead in Florida too, and could quite concievably beat Rubio in places like Michigan, New York, Wisconsin and Illinois
 
Last edited:
Trump now threatening to sue Cruz over the spreading of lies (the poor fragile flower) - I believe it might have something to do with so-called robo calls, a dirty campaign trick pioneered by Karl Rove and used by George W Bush to damage John McCain. It would be difficult to argue that its ethical. You basically pretend to be polling opinion and then when you find someone who indicates support for the opponent you start asking a serious of slanderous questions, but critically they are framed "if you learnt that X, might have done Y, would your view likely change" - "if" and "might" being the critical wording as it stops short of making the allegation, and can be defended as hypothetical attitude surveying. McCain supporters were subjected to the question "if you learnt that John McCain had adopted a black baby might you feel differently" - (McCain had adopted a Bangladeshi child out of an orphanage, who Grove painted black in the racially charged state of South Carolina)

Also Trump is accussing the GOP of loading audiences in line with donors and superPAC contributors and hence he gets a hostile reception. Trump is now saying this constitutes a breach of the GOP's commitment to a level playing field and releases him of his obligation not to run as an independent if so chooses to. The implications of this would be clear. Not only is Ted Cruz suddenly king of the hill, but the chances of the GOP winning the white house would be drastically hit. He's basically holding them hostage

It remains to be seen how the polls react to Trumps denunciation of the Iraq war and Bush in particular. The audience in South Carolina booed him, but the reaction in the socialmediaverse seems to have been more accommodating. There is a definite trend there that says its about time someone came out and said what they all know to be true privately, and for the Republicans to stop living in denial. The candidates who might have looked silly were those who tried to defend the legacy of Dubya.

The candidates who seem to have come out of the last debate best were Rubio and Kasich. Trump and Cruz hit as many high notes as they did low notes. Jeb! got flushed down the toilet again, and Carson is just standing there planning his speaking tour and book signings.

I'm not sure what prompted Trump to lay into the Iraq war in a very militarily loaded state such as South Carolina. Does he believe there's a resentment amongst those who served that they were put away? Or was it an ill advised flit of temper. The one thing he said that does seem to have struck a chord was when he mentioned the hundreds of people who he knew that died in 9/11. And he clearly holds Bush responsible for starting a war and lying about the reasons. He basically called him out and said that which ever way they try and spin it, there was no WMD in Iraq and the people were lied to, with many paying with their own blood - ouch!

We might get a better idea in the next 48 hours when the first post debate polls appear. The pattern has always been to date however that people predict that Trump has over stepped the mark this time, but he keeps defying it
 
Last edited:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02172016_Ut34wgb.pdf

Trump is doing OK amongst evangelicals (still trails Cruz), but all of sudden he's starting to clean up the moderate conservative and slightly liberal leaning votes by huge margins. There has to be a chance now that if the moderate trinity of Bush, Kasich and Rubio start to drop out, the conventional wisdom that their votes will trasnfer amongst each other is under pressure, and that a good percentage could migrate to Trump. Indeed, Trump could emerge as the stop Cruz candidate yet

This is a new highwater mark for him. The 30% ceiling is rising

Heads are spinnin'
 
Warbler said:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02172016_Ut34wgb.pdf

Trump is doing OK amongst evangelicals (still trails Cruz), but all of sudden he's starting to clean up the moderate conservative and slightly liberal leaning votes by huge margins. There has to be a chance now that if the moderate trinity of Bush, Kasich and Rubio start to drop out, the conventional wisdom that their votes will trasnfer amongst each other is under pressure, and that a good percentage could migrate to Trump. Indeed, Trump could emerge as the stop Cruz candidate yet

This is a new highwater mark for him. The 30% ceiling is rising

Heads are spinnin'
Click to expand...

Great link. A friend of mine always speaks about his surprise when people are surprised when ceilings are broken.
 
Last edited:
I think there's merit to back and lay in the current volatility. I suspect you could probably have backed the field at 8/1 or bigger in the last 3 months

I'd advocated Kasich at 40 and Bush at 18 thinking you'd be out of Kasich first, but all of a sudden I'm not sure that Jeb couldn't be the weaker. Trump took a real chance last Saturday in addressing the elephant in the room, but the noises I'm picking up is that a lot of people are relieved that someone finally dared to say it. It's almost as if there's been a tidal wave since as Republicans who've had to defend a policy for a decade that even they can see has spectacularly failed have suddenly had the evil spell lifted

The endorsement angle is one of Nate Silvers. He correlated various factors with GOP electoral success and discovered that this was the strongest predictor. The question as to whether its going to apply here though has to be questionable. Neither of the front two in the polls are establishment figures. They're never going to attract any heavy endorsements outside of lunatics from Alaska. If it were about endorsements then Jeb would be sitting prominent at the moment, but Trump just toys with him

I think there might be an issue of cause and effect involved myself. Candidates normally get endorsements when party grandees have taken a view as to who the likely winner is. Naturally they want to stay on the right side. It's less clear to me if the endorsement causes them to win. It's notable that the number of endorsements are down this year at this stage in the process as people sit on the fence, and it didn't stop Cruz in Iowa when the Governor came out for Trump and implored the electorate to vote against anyone but Cruz

I think Rubio probably is the only plausible moderate. Kasich isn't without hope but his stratgey is focused on the northern states that vote between March 1st and 15th. He could be dead by super Tuesday. His is a long shot.

There is of course the spectre of a brokered convention. This crops up almost every other cycle but 1948 was the last time it happened. If Trump heads the delegate count but hasn't got the majority come the conference then the GOP have some really tough decisions to make. Can they really nominate a party insider who lost the popular vote? You'd almost certainly invite Trump to go independent and hand the white house to whoever the democrat is. They might even prefer to do that instead of ending up with Trump though. My own suspicion is that enough of them will come round to Trump if he's won, and he's be striking a slightly more middle ground tone recently allowing Cruz to stand on the right flank howling at the moon

The price I've been after for a bit of time (but haven't found) is a Trump majority for the white house of 50+. I reckon that might have been about 40/1 after Iowa if anyone were pricing it (I think he dropped out to 8/1 for nomination)
 
Rumour mill starting to suggest that Jeb is on the verge of calling it a day. Well it is South Carolina!

he's had a brutal week

First Trump gave him a serious kicking in the debate, and Bush whining that he's a "bully" plays out badly (didn't do John Major any harm though in 1992)
Then he buys himself a handgun, then posts a picture Twitter and becomes an international laughing stock
Finally Mikki Haley endorses Rubio (the killer punch)

Suspect Jeb! has taken too many now. The latest superPAC data has just been released and it makes grim reading. He's spent more than anyone else by a country mile and yet Trump has him trussed up like a turkey

The initial beneficiary will likely be Rubio in terms of migratory support, possibly enough to take a couple of second places. In any post morten however the number that Trump has done on him might mean that the Donald is the long term beneficiary. America will be crying out for a strong leader, and even if Bush ultimately cut a forlorn and frankly pathetic figure vaguely reminiscent of Jimmy Carter, it was he of the orange face and yellow hair that took him down. Bush was the one time favourite, the most capable inheritor of the dynasty, with the establishment right behind him, and a super PAC that others could only drool over. In the space of 6 months Donald Trump has turned him to jelly

You also suspect it'll make a few of other candidates wary of crossing swords with the Donald too openly. He's already inflicted severe wounds on others and its been notable that when Cruz has been called on to do the same from the debate podium rather than from the safety of an attack ad, he's declined each time
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Rumour mill starting to suggest that Jeb is on the verge of calling it a day.

he's had a brutal week
Click to expand...
There's no doubt that the American public are just fed up with the Bush dynasty, and aren't buying into the once-accepted notion of " George Bush keeping America safe" anymore. This is demonstrated by the muted response to Trump's referencing of 911 under Dubya's watch.

But it is also just possible that the explosive new book, "Jeb And The Bush Crime Family", by the respected political insider Roger Stone could severely damage Jebs remaining credibility. It's quite possible that the accusations in the book have frightened the GOP grandees into having a quiet word into Jeb's earhole.
The Roger Stone book is truly dynamite -- quite appalling accusations of drug-dealing with Columbian drug tsars, the defrauding of S 'n L's, funnelling of public money into Lehman brothers, bribes from big pharma etc etc.
For a flavour of naughty Jeb's criminal behaviour, scroll down the page a bit in:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/jeb-hit-between-eyes-with-sensational-allegations/
 
I see Trumps calling the Pope out now!!!

You've gotta hand it to the Donald, he's nothing if not pure theatre

Time to trade Jeb out (well that was probably this morning)

Most of the stuff I'm reading about Trump calling out George W Bush seems to have worked well for him I'd say. For a decade this has remained a big no/ no in Republican circles. In one decisive swoop Trump cut straight to it and carved out a path that basically said those who want to deny that this was anything other than a complete disaster you can stand over there with Jeb. Those who want to go forward need to accept past mistakes, and then join me etc Quite a few seem to have taken the opportunity to break.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top