Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My 50-1 shot for the GOP WH2016 nomination moves into the l
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My 50-1 shot for the GOP WH2016 nomination moves into the lead in New Hampshire
My thinking six months ago was that a big thing that Rand Paul’s likely to have going for him is his father’s extraordinarily enthusiastic and well organised supporter base that at one stage during last summer threatened to make life very difficult for the Romney camp.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Nevertheless, Paul’s trip to Israel to mend fences with Jewish and evangelical conservatives worked wonders. His votes against gun control and the budget proved his Tea Party credentials. And his brilliant filibuster against drone strikes reminds us that he’s not just another RINO. The only danger ahead that I can see is his position on amnesty, which is vague and potentially unpopular with working-class Americans. Besides that, we’re looking at a frontrunner in this crucial primary state.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100213895/rand-paul-tops-a-poll-for-new-hampshire-2016-truly-he-is-the-live-free-or-die-candidate/
By the next election the republicans will be desperate to win and will be looking for a more centrist figure, almost certainly the successful governor of a marginal state who has shown he can attract democrats as well as the nutters.
Best of luck with your long shot, Mr. Smithson. Ah, I like the Pirelli tyre racing, but found betting a bit easier when refuelling was around. Then, pre-season testing made it much easier to predict who'd be fast, and it meant that qualifying was out of whack with race pace. Predicting a political result this far out must be pretty tricky, given the nature of the contest.
Who do you see as his main rivals? Rubio?
If she does, she wins. If she does, the GOP can pick anybody they like, fruitcase or not, and the only difference will be the size of the defeat. So they might well go with Paul, who incidentally I do not regard as a fruitcase and is definitely NOT in the same wacko league as some of the batshitcrazies they put up last time.
Whether Hillary runs seems to depend largely if not wholly on her health, and only she knows about that.
My guess is she runs.
His demeanour, policies and accent will have the lefties in a terrible froth - what fun !
Cam just pwned silly moo on radio 5 over council tax rates. Thought she was going to burst into tears.
Not sure if today's YG has been posted: CON 32%, LAB 40%, LD 11%, UKIP 12%; APP -30. the lead's pretty stable in the 7-8 range at the moment, hard to get excited over the change from the 9-11 range. Today's Scotland subsample is intriguing though: Lab/SNP/Con 30/28/29. Perhaps that Tory bounce there reflects a genuine response to Osborne's remarks? Or perhaps it's random subsample movement as per usual. Conversely Labour almost matching the Tories in the South and streets ahead in the midlands and north.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/evdm0c03wp/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-250413.pdf
Off topic, OGH what about an updated look at the growing influence of Unite and the Unions on the Labour party? Whatever Ed may want to do, there is a new version of the Militant type of "organisation within an organisation" underway. 81% of the funding and after GE2015 a bigger share of the MPs in Labour. There is already similar union activity in the MEP selections.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314950/Majority-Labours-MPs-2015-election-links-unions.html
Candidates "now have to give up their jobs for at least nine weeks before an election – up from four weeks" That will drive out many people in work from becoming candidates!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/25/article-2314934-14056383000005DC-643_308x425.jpg
Edited extra bit: must say I find the general school obsession bizarre. It was even mentioned when the new Archsocialist was announced.
"Off topic, OGH what about an updated look at the growing influence of Unite and the Unions on the Labour party?"
And then perhaps a thread on the part fancy dress is playing in the Tory Party. Perhaps "Have the Hooray Henrys reclaimed the Tory Party"?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/25/article-2314934-14056383000005DC-643_308x425.jpg
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/10/29/Bullingdonhunt.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/09/23/article-1215635-0663F75C000005DC-589_634x525.jpg
http://ronapainting.com/images/fullsize/New_Folder/Bbest-light-full-d.jpg
The republican freak show last time was truly disastrous for the republican party and the leadership will be desperate to avoid a repeat. So we will see a much shorter nomination process with higher organisational barriers like many states voting on the same day to winnow out the nutters early. This is not necessarily bad news for the inheritor of the Paul organisation but I just don't see it resulting in a nomination myself.
Including Miliband.
They are absolute hypocrites.
"Overall we were a great government"
Are those nice gentleman in white coats on hand at the Beeb ??
As an aside, a Hillary-Paul contest would just re-emphasise the dynastic nature of US presidential politics.
I agree with those who are looking to a governor for the Republican nomination. Washington insiders have a tendancy to bring too much voting history for the primaries.
Be careful of what you ask for: to prevent bias you would have to show a certain picture of Ed Balls:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4567073/Shadow-chancellor-Ed-Balls-No-shame-over-my-Nazi-uniform.html
Which is why your sort of arguments are so puerile. People do silly things as kids and teenagers; the important thing is that no long-term harm is caused, and they learn lessons. It's part of growing up.
Let he who is without sin...
Imagine the horror of John O as he takes the train from Hersham to the City via Dundalk or Peter the Punter rumaging through cast me down frocks and barely functioning suspenders as Mike indulges in another bout of self promotional betting p0rn.
For shame Smithson, for shame !!
The entire panel seemed in in thrawl of the guy and allowed him to dictate the terms of the debate. Up until now I've always thought the UKIP thing was one of thoise mid term protests that happen in every parliament, but now I'm not so sure.
Clear the other parties of terrified of him....
As for David's point about fruits and nuts - what is it about Brits who are desperate to believe the Republicans only nominate crazies? Romney was the most centrist credible figure last time (Huntsman wasn't credible, pace Mike) and McCain the time before. Heck, even Bush jr ran as a moderate before 9/11. The biggest problem with a Paul nomination is that the Republicans like to flirt with candidates who tickle their g-spots but marry the respectable ones.
This looks like one of YouGov's polls where the total result looks right but the regional subsamples contain some rubbish. The pollster must know that it is very very unlikely for the Cons to reach 29% in Scotland when they only attained 17% in 2010.
2016 - If Hilary runs she wins.
ARSE (BUTT) - Worldwide and PB Supreme US Election Analyst - 2008-2012.
well I know what you mean about dressing up etc. and I won't bore you by posting Balls in his Nazi days, but the weird thing is you couldn't really see EdM being a fancy dress kind of person, it's that kind of "can't do normal" air he has about him.
That said, she is eight years older and you're right that someone may come out of left(ish)-field, as Obama did. It seems improbable that there'll be a continuity Administration candidate but there could well be someone from a governorship or the Senate. Democrats are far more prone to picking 'new' candidates than the GOP is.
On which note, who is the GOP establishment candidate next time? The favourite from some way out nearly always wins and is nearly always an establishment choice, however the position seems somewhat vacant at the moment.
1) He has nothing to fear, and nothing he can lose, both externally and internally.
2) He speaks his mind, and what he believes. Not (as all the other main parties do), what they think people want to hear. (or even more accurately, what they think people want to hear).
I think a lot of modern day politicans are afraid. Of being seen to make an error, or offend someone, or to make a 'gaffe'. Both Farage, and Boris don't have that fear, and it makes them seem much more genuine people.
Did you enjoy public school girl Luciana Berger doing mockney on QT last night?
As so often Jessop the point goes flying over your head. This isn't about fancy dress but privilege and the reactionary nature of the Tory Party one of the last bastions of a privileged elite. A time warp where meritocracy is a dirty word and where rich parents are revered.
Word of caution - New Hampshire is definitely better for a Ron/Rand Paul type candidate than alot of other states.
Generally speaking, strong union support will deliver a position on the shortlist for selection because affiliated unions can make nominations and candidates with lots of nominations tend to be shortlisted. But as the selection is OMOV, it's then up to members. Some short-listed union activists will be chosen if members think they're the best candidates. There's nothing odd, or new, about that.
The article you linked to is a quick and easy 1000 words that a bored journalist rattled off rather than anything more substantial. Process discussions are irrelevant to normal voters.
Both are never going to get in power (as a single party). It doesn't matter what they're policies are, rather than what they stand for.
Your position on privilege is as stupid as your one on women in the workplace.
If - and it is a big if - the Tories can avoid shooting themselves in the feet, the economy continues to recover then I would be surprised to see the lead narrow further.
Let's say it falls to 5 points post summer. At what point will Labour MPs and fellow travellers begin to get twitchy?
How many second generation apparatchiks have been lined up for safe seats?
Ed Miliband tells @bbc5live re Galloway: "I don't think people in my party are concerned'. Discuss
Ed proving he's a bit thick...
@RobbieGibb: David Cameron has missed 3.2% of PMQs, compared to 5% for Tony Blair and 11.8% for Gordon Brown (4/4) #bbcdp
Debating with Donald Trump, Ron Paul and ,,,oh what was his name... education? really does not help you be a winner. Susana Martinez is the sort of candidate (tbh I don't know much about her abilities) the republicans should be looking at. Female, from a minority and able to win in a state that is trending democratic. That way they could appeal to several demographics that they lost very heavily the last time.
As for Hillary in 08 I think Obama was a phenomenal campaigner, far,far better than he has been a President and only someone of Hillary's strengths could have made it close. Since then she has been a very respected Secretary of State where she won a lot of kudos from republicans and shed any vestiges of her left wing past. If her health holds up she will require another remarkable candidate to deny her.
But you can still pretend the opposite, if it is a sort of therapy and makes you feel better.
There's a big debate in US politics on whether the candidate should actually manage the campaign. There's a pretty strong argument that the candidate has enough on their plate doing candidate type things and you need a separate manager to full-time oversee the campaign apparatus.
The Tories are as dominated by professional politicians as the Labour Party is. It's not so much the "last bastion" of the (outgoing) elite as one of the strongholds of the next elite.
I also note no attacks on our Old Etonian Archbishop of Canterbury as a red faced chinless fop.
The petty spitefulness of the attacks on Cameron and co just shows how void of real ideas the Labour party is.
I let you pick the category you fall in. I am sure you are in good faith and it is the former. Probably diverted by devious media and mischievous individuals.
It's a mistake for the Labour party to major on this point (as well as being hypocritical). It makes them look class obsessed and, IMHO, turns off swing voters.
' Do you think of Harriet Harman as working class ?'
I don't think Harman's auntie the Countess of Longford would agree.
Not sure which Brits you are referring to but this particular Brit is very aware that the GOP almost invariably nominates the safe choice in the end,Barry Goldwater being the obvious exception.
In fact many of us Brits here on PB made a packet by 'laying the loony' throughout the last GOP nomination contest. Maybe you weren't around to enjoy the beanfeast.
Others have answered your points regarding Hillary. I agree with you about Rubio though. He's the GOP's best shot, but I would be astonished if he beat her.
If the Democrats have to run with somebody else, it could get interesting. Rubio/Cuomo or Rubio/Gillibrand would be close, imo.
You said 'this is the case, because Andrew Pierce says it is'.
I refuted your view, with a reasoned argument (based on the fact that I know the individuals involved personally).
You haven't responded to my comment
But your view is now a "fact".
I bow before your superior wisdom.
No but she didn't join the party of the fancy dressers. The time warp party as seen in those photos.
If she starts a Roedean section in the Labour Party then it'll be time to reappraise.
Why aren't you at Perth?
The company I work for competes with my family business. That potentially creates conflicts, but so long as they are managed appropriately that isn't a problem for anyone.
Annual school fees for Harman, Blair, Darling, Toynbee, Balls, Chuka, Berger, Penny et al would be more than likely to be beyond the reach of anyone on or close to the average UK wage.
Amnesia about the background of Labour's leading figures: Oxford, fee paying schooling, or education at a selective school is common place, conveniently hidden whilst they hone their attacks on The Tories; likewise plenty of journalists and commentators prefer to remain reticent about their circumstances.
'In which areas do you oppose equality of opportunity?'
A Labour MP that preaches equality and then sends their son to a selective grammar school 10 miles from their inner London constituency..
Corbyn and his wife split over where to educate one of their sons. His wife favoured QE Barnet for one of their sons rather than risk one of Islington's comps.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2
We need to be open to changes that provide more security. I don’t like profiling anybody or singling or generally leading, on the other hand student visas are something this country does because it’s in our national interest but you don’t have a right to a student visa. I’m not prepared to take a firm position on restriction. I want to learn about what might have worked to prevent past attacks.
It's a bit waffly, but hardly loony.
Nonsense and you know it.
so you are saying that Labour Party toffs can (be allowed to) put aside their upbringing in order to serve their country but that Cons Party toffs cannot?
even middle of the road right wing nutters such as Moi gasp that the Cons can appoint an OE to such a high-profile job.
It's just bad politics and doesn't help the narrative.
wrt the "as a father" - as you are well aware, he is doing what you do, building a narrative. It will percolate through to the public consciousness until without thinking, people will say to themselves "oh that nice Mr Cameron; he's a father you know".
No point pointing it out to us the whole time on here. We get it.
In my mind the problem is nothing to do with which school they were sent to, which people can hardly help, but in the way politics is getting increasing numbers of people with the same university and work-life backgrounds.
Our very own Nick Palmer is a welcome exception to this.
There is a place for career politicians. I'm not sure that place is in politics, though.
Starts around 1hr 49 mins in. Rachel Burden (quite) tries to claim that Con councils charge more tax , PM rightly suggests that you should compare band D rates.
Lovely spat at 1hr 51m where the the interview loses the argument, gets patronised by the PM and retreats to telling the PM that experts will differ
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s1jbl
rEd on later at 2hrs 35 ish - very angry and shouty - not pleasant.
"It takes a certain chutzpah for a relatively new MP to stand their ground on a public platform with Peter Mandelson and to make the former business secretary look slightly out of touch.
But that is exactly what Jo Johnson did when he dismissed an attempt by Mandelson to goad him into criticising David Cameron's plans to hold a referendum on EU membership."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/25/jo-johnson-left-field-choice
Or possibly the Independent:
"Some people say that the really smart member of the Johnson family is the quiet one, Jo Johnson, MP for Orpington – and we are about to find out a lot more about him. Jo has just been promoted to perform for David Cameron the role that David Miliband used to fulfil for Tony Blair, running the Downing Street Policy Unit. It is expected that his formidable intelligence will be applied to the task of helping to put together a manifesto on which to fight the 2015 election."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/its-bojo-vs-jojo--so-will-johnson-jr-come-out-in-front-of-his-brother-boris-8588916.html
But no....the Mail.....
Usual lefties talk the talk but not the walk,hilarious though the excuses they come up with.
Tim's been given a model answer by party HQ on how you try to explain Harman's hypocrisy,still everyone knows a fake.
More Balls on one of your favourite themes of the day.
If Labour's education policies are so wonderful why was it that social mobility was seen as a problem by Blair's government, can you recall why Milburn was asked to look at it?