politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio the big betting gainer and Bush the big loser after a

SystemSystem Posts: 12,292
edited 2015 03 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Rubio the big betting gainer and Bush the big loser after a week that saw the 3rd Republican nominee WH2016 debate

Because there is a general clampdown down in the US on online betting many US observers are having to look at what is happening on the UK markets in order to get a sense of the betting sentiment on the White House Race.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Mr. Rentool, 'pooled'?

    Ha.

    On-topic: I am mildly irked that my 50/1 bet on Rubio was for the preceding election. Morris Dancer = ahead of the times! [If Greening or Patel become the leader after next of the Conservatives I shall be very annoyed].
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,739
    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm seeing double.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,830
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    I was reading something yesterday saying that Bush's support would entirely shift across to Rubio if he dropped out. Carson and Trump need to keep Bush in the race.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    HurstLlama said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DavidL said:

    But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.

    It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
    By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
    The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,739
    edited 2015 03
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,739
    rottenborough said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.
    That would explain a lot.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    FPT. Charles.

    Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....

    The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,062
    edited 2015 03
    MD

    Entre nous='between ourselves'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,739
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?

    Between ourselves
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited 2015 03
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Roger, 'entre nous'?

    'entre nous' - openly slagging off English waitresses when one thinks we're amongst like minded bigoted souls.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Cheers, Mr. Roger, Mr. Eagles, and Mr. 30.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited 2015 03
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited 2015 03
    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,739
    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    I'm putting together a thread on the Edstone.

    I describe the Edstone as the most important obelisk in human history, even more so than the obelisk at the start of 2001
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,351
    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,876
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    Then, he turns to Jimmy Saville for inspiration.

    I think Donald Trump, Herman Cain, or Christine O'Donnell would all make better candidates than Jeb.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @Roger

    Thank you
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    edited 2015 03
    JEO said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DavidL said:

    But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.

    It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
    By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
    The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.
    Because the French will say "NON"

    It is a "Little Europe" policy that is well past it's sell by date.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    DavidL said:

    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

    My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @CycleFree

    Mrs. Free, we spoke last night about cat food. Herself has just come home having done some shopping. Whilst helping to unpack (i.e. rummaging through the bags to see what goodies there are) I found a pack of frozen Crab Au Gratin. Naturally I made appreciative noises as a good husband should when his wife has bought him a treat. "Get off", she said, "Those aren't for you! They are for Thomas".

    Good quality cat food is so expensive these days it is actually cheaper to feed the moggie on human food. A Waitrose roast chicken may not have the right mix of vitamins and minerals a cat needs but they only cost a fiver and when the moggie is over 18 years old does it matter.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FWIW, punditry here thinks it is essentially between Rubio and Cruz at this point with Rubio the clear front runner and Cruz really just the flag bearer for the angry and ultra conservatives. Christie and Kasich are seen, as I voiced before this became the received wisdom, as the back ups in case Rubio falters.

    Interesting to see Kasich's numbers have improved significantly as Bush has fallen.

    Feeling smug to have been saying all along (at least since he announced and did not assume a commanding lead) that Jeb would not get it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    F1: last time I'll put this up, but it was a bit late so you may have missed my post-race rambling about the Mexican Grand Prix, which went reasonably well:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/mexico-post-race-analysis.html
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    rottenborough said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

    I think that is re-writing history. Barbara Bush, who rules the family like an old-fashioned matriarch, was strongly opposed to Jeb running and had to be persuaded by him to give her blessing. He did not announce until he got it.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

    "Read my lips - no new taxes"

    and

    "Mission accomplished"
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    I'm putting together a thread on the Edstone.

    I describe the Edstone as the most important obelisk in human history, even more so than the obelisk at the start of 2001
    Tut! 2001 had a monolith; obelisks are tapering. And you claim to be a classicist...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    JEO said:


    FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.

    What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    isam said:

    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

    That it doesn't sound like compelling viewing. In other words, exactly what we made of the programme which JEO was getting so excited about.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    MikeSmithson said:

    DavidL said:

    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

    My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

    I think you are wrong on Fiorina. She is not a good campaigner and has way too much baggage in the closet which has not yet been fully deployed because she has not really cracked into the top tier.

    The natural politicians - those for whom it is 'easy' - in the GOP race are Rubio, Christie and Huckabee, although Huckabee could never get the nod.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    MTimT said:

    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

    "Read my lips - no new taxes"

    and

    "Mission accomplished"
    I can't think of any way to get the Deliverance banjo music into words. Maybe just "squeal like a pig".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,351
    MikeSmithson said:

    DavidL said:

    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

    My money's split between Rubio and Trump with some speculative bets from some time ago on Fiorina who, to my mind at least, s by far the best candidate.

    Fiorina should be a strong candidate, in the same way as Huntsman should have been the last time, but sometimes it just doesn't happen. I think that once Trump starts falling it could be precipitous but I am conscious that I just found him ridiculous from day 1 and obviously many far more relevant Americans did not.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    isam said:

    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

    We get the text version of that on pb every day.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited 2015 03
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

    We get the text version of that on pb every day.
    Even if that were true, you criticise it!

    But I don't really remember anyone suggesting any of that, it's normally that it wouldn't be much different, but we'd be in control

    As I said yesterday, I'd rather Corbyn PM and open borders outside the EU ham the status quo. At least we could vote him out and he couldnt do the Cameron/May routine of blaming their hands being tied by some EU bureaucrat
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited 2015 03
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    isam said:

    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

    That it doesn't sound like compelling viewing. In other words, exactly what we made of the programme which JEO was getting so excited about.
    It doesn't I agree, but it wouldn't get shown and that's the difference
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    isam said:

    ... a post EU Britain of ... constant sunshine

    Sounds like you subscribe to global warming.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    antifrank said:

    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

    I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    antifrank said:

    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    They've been ahead of the polls in forecasting Marco Rubio's rise.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Rubio is, perhaps, rightly favourite, but the current odds are too short. There are still many banana skins in his path. These include fundraising (he hasn't done much), organisation (he hasn't got much), relative inexperience, a patchy Senate record, and his position on immigration.

    See here for a useful summary of his position and the field as a whole:

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicans-2016-oct-28-debate/
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    MTimT said:

    FWIW, punditry here thinks it is essentially between Rubio and Cruz at this point with Rubio the clear front runner and Cruz really just the flag bearer for the angry and ultra conservatives. Christie and Kasich are seen, as I voiced before this became the received wisdom, as the back ups in case Rubio falters.

    Interesting to see Kasich's numbers have improved significantly as Bush has fallen.

    Feeling smug to have been saying all along (at least since he announced and did not assume a commanding lead) that Jeb would not get it.

    To this longtime Bush-sceptic, it is no surprise he's going nowhere but it still looks murky. It may be a mistake to treat Carson and Trump as the same. From the far side of the Atlantic, it looks like Carson has the religious and rural right who might have gone to Huckabee, whereas the ideologically uncertain Trump has NOTA and voters who might otherwise go to Cruz (and for that reason, Cruz might be worth a look as VP candidate to a centrist at the top).

    The GOP Establishment has not jumped one way or the other. Bush remains in the race. Ryan as new Speaker might even make a difference if a more confrontational Congress pushes the candidates that way.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Anorak said:

    MTimT said:

    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

    "Read my lips - no new taxes"

    and

    "Mission accomplished"
    I can't think of any way to get the Deliverance banjo music into words. Maybe just "squeal like a pig".
    The Bushes are old money Kennenbunkport - true WASPs, for all their Texas and Florida connections. Deliverance is hardly their style.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    This sounds a harrowing debate http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3301966/Tory-MP-Antoinette-Sandbach-chokes-tears-relives-harrowing-moment-five-day-old-son-died.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,640
    MTimT said:

    Anorak said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    The slogan was only the start of it
    He wrote it, and now he's a part of it
    Jeb'll fix it with an 8 foot 6 inch limestone policy obelisk.
    Ooooo! We should have a competition for best suggested inscription (or engraving?).

    Having said that, I'm drawing a blank :blush:
    Why not some good old Bush family sayings:

    "Read my lips - no new taxes"

    and

    "Mission accomplished"
    "Some people call you the Elite. I call you my base"
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,302
    Roger said:

    FPT. Charles.

    Partly the way my post was formatted. I was mainly aiming at Max's "Lazy Pakis vote Labour-Hard working Hindus vote Tory". You just joined in....

    The problem with this site when it becomes completely Tory is that conversations which would normally be 'entre nous' you feel emboldened to say out loud

    Dear Bill,

    Entre nous...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Bill

    You are a Private Eye Reader from the 1980s, and I claim my five gold sovereigns.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    JEO said:


    FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.

    What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.
    Once again, you completely fail to engage with my arguments or the facts of the debate. As soon as the argument paints you into a corner, where you're forced to either deny something obviously true or concede the argument, you just avoid answering and start insulting the other person.

    I don't actually care if you deride me. There are a great number of informed voices on this board from all over the political shop, whose opinions I respect. But then there are a handful of individuals like yourself, Dair or malcolmg who allow emotion to overflow critical thinking, and when challenged start name-calling.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,876
    FPT Charles, I always find Edith Cavell's story moving.

    I think it's wrong to view her as victim and martyr, as wartime propaganda portrayed her; rather as a woman of exceptional courage and resourcefulness, who knew very well that she was gambling her life, in order to rescue her countrymen.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Would be interesting to hear what 'les indecideds' made of an Arron Banks funded film shown on the BBC that depicted a post EU Britain of social harmony, flourishing economy, zero crime and constant sunshine

    We get the text version of that on pb every day.
    But not funded with taxpayer's money.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    JEO said:

    antifrank said:

    JEO said:


    FPT You keep on arguing against strawman arguments I haven't said, like the BBC bidding for EU grants, or the EU being involved creatively in the programme. Those things are irrelevant. The only things you need to believe for my statement to be true are points 1 through 3. And you openly admit you don't know at least two of those points. But despite not knowing the facts, you insult someone that does know the facts for the conclusion that results from them.

    What rot. You sought to taint the BBC's neutrality with wild accusations and minimal evidence. If you don't want derision heaped on you, don't conjure up absurd conspiracy theories.
    Once again, you completely fail to engage with my arguments or the facts of the debate. As soon as the argument paints you into a corner, where you're forced to either deny something obviously true or concede the argument, you just avoid answering and start insulting the other person.

    I don't actually care if you deride me. There are a great number of informed voices on this board from all over the political shop, whose opinions I respect. But then there are a handful of individuals like yourself, Dair or malcolmg who allow emotion to overflow critical thinking, and when challenged start name-calling.
    Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

    And you wonder why I deride you?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,351
    MTimT said:

    antifrank said:

    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

    I think they are wholly unreliable. On average, I'd say that in political markets, people tend to bet on outcomes they want, rather than on what really will happen (of course, PB betters excepted). That is bad enough when the betters are voters. But when they are not even citizens of the country in which the election is to be held, and cannot have that gut feeling for elections that comes with living in the country, I'd strongly caution against placing much credence in them at all as predictors.
    That's really what I was saying. Just because Americans speak a kind of English we think we understand them much more than we do.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Pulpstar said:

    JEO said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    DavidL said:

    But this is an EU problem, not a Greek or Hungary or Italy problem and we will need to help to clean up the mess. As you say it is in our interests to do so.

    It could come out of the aid budget, so it needn't mean a net increase in our spending.
    By the same token why cannot the EU take the money it needs from existing budgets, perhaps spend less in one area in order to increase spending in another? Why is it that the EU's seemingly only solution to any problem is to demand more cash from its members' taxpayers.
    The Common Agricultural Policy is 40% of the entire EU budget. I don't see how we can possibly justify taking money away from people suffering in Africa, yet still leave wealthy French farmers untouched.
    Because the French will say "NON"

    It is a "Little Europe" policy that is well past it's sell by date.
    This is why Cameron's renegotiation is so important. If we mange to get the critical reforms needed to the EU, it will show that an Anglo-German axis can overcome the historic Franco-German one.
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    DavidL said:

    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

    ============================

    I lived in America for 25 yrs in 8 western states and have followed US politics extensively
    RUBIO is indeed the obvious choice for the Republicans with at least a 50/50 chance of beating Hillary ..he's probably the only one who can beat her ; he's young , dynamic and ''Kennedy-esque ''and offers the best contrast to the aging establishment figure (Hillary) who has a smug and preening sense of entitlement that is sure to tempt fate
    He is in some ways a Republican Obama and Obama beat Hillary ...American politics are intertwined with Hollywood and Rubio looks and sounds like someone from the entertainment industry ...sounds like a recipe for success to me

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    When does the renegotiation start btw ?
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    antifrank said:

    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

    =========================

    If Rubio fails then Cruz is the backup , but Cruz seems too provincial and Texan , too Elmore Gantry for the under 40 crowd in the swing states

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    edited 2015 03
    Cromwell said:

    antifrank said:

    On topic, the UK betting markets on the US seem to me to be lagging rather than leading.

    I'd not be comfortable betting against Ted Cruz at present.

    =========================

    If Rubio fails then Cruz is the backup , but Cruz seems too provincial and Texan , too Elmore Gantry for the under 40 crowd in the swing states

    Rubio and Cruz are the same age !

    I do like Cruz's plans for US space exploration tho ;p
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,351
    Cromwell said:

    DavidL said:

    To me, Rubio looks the obvious choice for the Republicans. I think he would have an excellent chance of beating Hillary.

    But I am quite a long way from a republican voter, let alone the average republican voter, and find it very hard to judge their thinking. What I can't help thinking is that these markets are getting driven more by people like me (who thinks Trump is a joke, more so than Corbyn even) than the people who are actually going to vote.

    Or to put it another way, the markets are running dangerously far ahead of the polling. They may be right, I think they probably are, but it assumes not just common sense but a common frame of reference and I think that is missing.

    ============================

    I lived in America for 25 yrs in 8 western states and have followed US politics extensively
    RUBIO is indeed the obvious choice for the Republicans with at least a 50/50 chance of beating Hillary ..he's probably the only one who can beat her ; he's young , dynamic and ''Kennedy-esque ''and offers the best contrast to the aging establishment figure (Hillary) who has a smug and preening sense of entitlement that is sure to tempt fate
    He is in some ways a Republican Obama and Obama beat Hillary ...American politics are intertwined with Hollywood and Rubio looks and sounds like someone from the entertainment industry ...sounds like a recipe for success to me

    Well that's good to hear but why is he not polling better, fundraising better and organising better?
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    I suspect that the Republicans will win Florida , Ohio , Iowa , Nevada and Colorado ...they could possibly even win Penn ...the Dems must win either Florida , Ohio or Penn
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited 2015 03
    antifrank said:



    Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

    And you wonder why I deride you?

    Sure, a fake documentary showing how the collapse of the EU caused catastrophe for Europe was funded by the EU for entirely technical matters.

    I know why you deride me. You have a habit of deriding everyone that disagrees with you. It substitutes for critical thinking.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

    Kasich definitely seemed slightly to the left of Bush from what I could pick up in the debates.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,351
    On American politics I really like to read Chris Cillizza. This was his piece on Ryan becoming speaker: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ryan-has-a-lot-going-for-him-but-hes-still-unlikely-to-heal-a-broken-house/2015/11/01/6e73549a-80a9-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html

    He says:

    "A 2014 study by the Pew Research Center showed that 92 percent of Republicans are more ideologically conservative than the median Democrat, and that 94 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the mean Republican. Compare that with a 1994 Pew study that found that the median Democrat was to the left of 64 percent of Republicans, and the median Republican to the right of 70 percent of Democrats. There is just not much middle ground left in America anymore."

    I think this is right and it gives more extreme candidates in both parties a considerable edge that they would not have with the population as a whole. Like antifrank, and for this reason, I would not rule out Cruz.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    JEO said:

    antifrank said:



    Your "argument", as you choose to call it, is that EU funding tentacles into the BBC are tainting the debate. The evidence that you've produced? The production company of one film that ultimately appeared on the BBC may have received EU funding - though there's no evidence that it had anything to do with the content and the funding may well have been for entirely technical matters.

    And you wonder why I deride you?

    Sure, a fake documentary showing how the collapse of the EU causing catastrophe for Europe was funded by the EU for entirely technical matters.

    I know why you deride me. You have a habit of deriding everyone that disagrees with you. It substitutes for critical thinking.
    As I said previously, you're welcome to your conspiracy theories but I won't be subscribing to your newsletter.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Mr. JEO, nonsense.

    I also enjoyed this FIFA documentary:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    I think the reason why the BBC has lost so much in reputation is that they simply don't care about thruth in evidence. A dozen years ago the BBC Panorama team came to Bournemouth to cover a story on rough sleepers under one of the Bournemouth piers. They presented a 23 year old man as one of the rough sleepers - but he had a council flat, on benefits with alcholism - the BBC interviewed him in the road outside his flat and paid for the interview with bottles of vodka. The program made me question the BBC's honesty.

    Whether or not there is/was a problem with rough sleepers in Bournemouth I don't know.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

    Indeed, that already appears to be happening.

    I'd still like to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket, but at this stage it is more likely to be Rubio at the top, and someone else on the bottom. Probably a woman.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    Rubio has had a slow start due to the fact that he has been overshadowed by Jeb who has most of the financial support but the big donors are quickly losing confidence in Jeb and are about to abandon ship and support Rubio ..Sheldon Adelson is about to back Rubio
    Trump is just a lot of noise and bluster , while the hapless Carson seems like he is promoting his books ; neither have any real intentions of becoming President ...I suspect that Rubio will win New Hampshire
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. JEO, nonsense.

    I also enjoyed this FIFA documentary:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Passions

    I'm sure FIFA chose to fund that documentary for technical reasons, and it was nothing to do with showing FIFA in a positive light.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Regan?
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    MTimT said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Rubio may not be the beneficiary if Bush withdraws. Someone like Kasich is more likely (imo) to pick up his support. Rubio and Bush may both come from Florida but that is where it ends, so far as I can see. Kasich is more like Bush politically, representing centrist pragmatism, so may pick up Bush voters and more importantly, Establishment and donor support.

    Indeed, that already appears to be happening.

    I'd still like to see a Kasich/Rubio ticket, but at this stage it is more likely to be Rubio at the top, and someone else on the bottom. Probably a woman.
    That sounds about right , but it could be Rubio/Kasich as a way to win ohio

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited 2015 03
    A neutral look at what might happen if we leave

    http://youtu.be/9ZLHi0bRkeU
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    Kasich makes sense as a VP due to his Ohio links.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,640
    HurstLlama said:

    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Regan?
    Reagan had George HW Bush as VP.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,640
    No Rod Crosby to tell us Rubio isn't eligible?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    isam said:

    A neutral look at what might happen if we leave

    I'm trying to work out what technical aspects won the funds: the quality special effects of a toy plane or the sophisticated acting of a sighing Angus Deayton.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,958
    Don't know much about Rubio yet.
    He doesn't look too rabid, though.
    http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/1601/marco-rubio/#.VjjjQPnhDcs
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,785
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Appreciate it's a satirical question, but Herbert Hoover, 1928
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Regan?
    Reagan had George HW Bush as VP.
    Ah, sorry.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    Ford/Rockefeller ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,640
    edited 2015 03
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Herbert Hoover, 1928 (VP was Charles Curtis)

    EDIT: got beaten to it!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited 2015 03
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Reagan didn't do too badly. I doubt Bush on the bottom of the ticket helped in the slightest.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    That turns out to be a smart question and as the answer shows, its getting on for 100 years
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

    HCWBTFFPOTUS
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    PAW said:

    I think the reason why the BBC has lost so much in reputation is that they simply don't care about thruth in evidence. A dozen years ago the BBC Panorama team came to Bournemouth to cover a story on rough sleepers under one of the Bournemouth piers. They presented a 23 year old man as one of the rough sleepers - but he had a council flat, on benefits with alcholism - the BBC interviewed him in the road outside his flat and paid for the interview with bottles of vodka. The program made me question the BBC's honesty.

    Whether or not there is/was a problem with rough sleepers in Bournemouth I don't know.

    I agree with you, but I'm guessing part of the problem is the way the bbc farms its programmes out to independent production companies who have sensationalism as a motive.
    The BBC is also obsessed with ratings when it should not be. As a mega multi billion pound organisation with no requirement to make a profit the BBC is at leisure to pay itself very comfortable salaries indeed.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,785
    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    MTimT said:

    Alistair said:

    Danny565 said:

    It's very hard to see what the argument for Jeb Bush is. Not conservative enough to get the core vote enthused, has a last name which is toxic for swing voters, little charisma or likability to compensate for any of that.

    The argument is unless the republicans pull out a candidate with a surname of Nixon then their amazing record will continue.
    Not sure I follow. Can you expand?
    I'm not really being serious but when was the last time the Republicans won a presidential election without a Nixon or Bush on the ticket?
    Reagan didn't do too badly. I doubt Bush on the bottom of the ticket helped in the slightest.
    Not sure that Nixon on the bottom of Eisenhower's ticket was really necessary to winning either...
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    Pulpstar said:

    When does the renegotiation start btw ?

    I thought they had. Do you think that when various bodies finally gather around the table they will not have actually sorted out the main points before hand?
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited 2015 03
    OMG. Shock resignation of one of UKIP's leading and most valuable members:

    Winston McKenzie

    http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-11-03/high-profile-ukip-member-quits-party/

    The question is, who will he join next?
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    The EU funds this really brilliant stuff as well


    http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/david-cameron-and-the-f-word/

    http://www.captaineuro.eu/comic-strips/the-norway-option-is-not-an-option/

    Note the second one in particular..
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    MTimT said:

    rottenborough said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jeb is running a truly dire campaign. You'd think Ed Miliband was his campaign chief.

    There's been speculation in some newspapers that he doesn't actually want it. Just going through the motions for family reasons.

    I think that is re-writing history. Barbara Bush, who rules the family like an old-fashioned matriarch, was strongly opposed to Jeb running and had to be persuaded by him to give her blessing. He did not announce until he got it.
    Jeb has greater hopes for his son than himself. The establishment persuaded him to run. When you look at the rag tag and bobtail if the other candidates you can see why.
    You also have to question why the GOP think it clever to line up a dozen or more prospective candidates, half of them self publicists, on national TV to make the party look stupid in public.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 38% (-)
    (via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    chestnut said:

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 38% (-)
    (via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

    All to play for.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,640
    chestnut said:

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 38% (-)
    (via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

    Broken, sleazy Remain on the slide?
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

    HCWBTFFPOTUS

    Listen to your Arse, Jack. Your Hillary prediction is your Ass speaking. That ghastly woman will never be President.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    chestnut said:

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 38% (-)
    (via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

    Time for a sequel to the "Great European Disaster Movie"?

    Maybe this time instead of race riots w Farage and Le Pen in charge of England and France they can make it even more scary

    The Ghost of Adolf Hitler and Nick Griffin agree to increase Global Warming?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    MP_SE said:

    chestnut said:

    Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 31 mins31 minutes ago
    EU referendum poll:
    Remain: 44% (-1)
    Leave: 38% (-)
    (via ICM / Oct 30 - 01 Nov)

    All to play for.
    Paraphrasing someone formerly of this parish: An utterly sensational poll for Leave. Their highest poll ever received by ICM on the first day of a month!


    I'll get my coat.... :p
Sign In or Register to comment.