Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The pollster with the best record in Iowa has Cruz taking 1
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The pollster with the best record in Iowa has Cruz taking 10% lead in the 1st state to decide
As was discussed on the last post Ann Selzer polling for the state’s leading newspaper has over the years built up an enviable reputation. Her approach reaches those most likely to vote in the caucuses.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/12/13/cruz-takes-a-ten-point-lead-in-iowa/
Not worthy of a thread.
No single poll is.
As mentioned in the previous thread, Iowa has a poor record of picking nominees compared with NH. I'd keep an eye on the polls there as the best indicator of how the race will pan out. All the same, Cruz is coming good and should remain a buy. I don't think that yet makes Trump a sell though.
J BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the Court
'Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was "declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law," United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 169 U. S. 688. Then follows a most significant sentence:
"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. .... The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.
'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship... rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process....
The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'
One other note of caution should also applied to my mind. Will we see shy Trumpsters and what is the scale of this potential GOP phenomenon?
An odd development here in Russia - the Government is (unlike Belarus) a signatory to the European Court of Justice, and has quietly been paying compensation to a string of complainants (several thousand, apparently) on humans and business rights issues. According to the (English-lanugage pro-business and critical of the government), they've now got fed up, but rather than withdraw altogether they've passed a law allowing the Constitutional Court to rule in specific cases that Russian law overrides the ECHR. This, says the paper, enables them to ignore major decisions that they don't fancy, but without the Government having to do it themselves - hey, Ministers can say, it's the court's decision, what can one do?
This is what Eurosceptics want in Britain, but I'd understood that it is itself inconsistent with the ECHR. No? (Genuine question)
Incidentally, another example of what seems to me the severely undervalued rouble (though Luckyguy doesn't agree) - petrol is 30p/litre...
I think we should be told.
Well I never
As someone not that up on US politics, is Iowa a key state or just a nice-to-win?
Of course if it's been denied by people close to Cameron it can't be true.
"Completely denied."
So the four years is a red line? Interesting.
I thought the four "demands" were somewhat feeble, but it's good to know that Cameron will not back down. "No ifs, no buts" - a man of his word.
Why doesn't Cameron have the bollox to say:
Look, I know it's not perfect but I want us to stay in regardless.
He is painting himself into a corner where unless he gets real concessions he's going to look weak and ineffective.
1) More competitiveness in the EU - which everyone wants
2) More than one currency in the EU - like saying more than one language, there is, and its here to stay
3) No tie in to the words "every closer union" - but still subject to the federalist ECJ
In otherwords nothing.
The HRA requires courts to judgements of the Court into account. Note that they are not required to follow the Court's judgements. They can, and do, depart from case law set by the ECHR. UK courts still have supremacy.
So Russia would be in breach of the ECHR if they use their Constitutional Court to overrule the European Court in cases involving Russia. However, they would not be in breach if they obey ECHR rulings but their Constitutional Court is not bound to follow such rulings in future cases.
I doubt that. He may be a fool, but he's not an idiot.
I've always regarded Cameron as a good politician, but an amateur dabbling in things he believes he's rather good at. They don't eat babies, they just have different priorities. Why do some believe that their opponents must always be the spawn of Satan?
Even Jezza has good points.
Regarding the ideas of soaking the returning expats, can't see that happening either on reflection, the government didn't just extend the franchise for overseas residents past 15 years, presumably because they tend to vote Tory, just to hand them a reason not to.
It'd take a lot for Cameron to shift to Out.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/charting-trumps-rise-in-the-decline-of-the-middle-class/2015/12/12/0f5df1d8-a037-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html
Leaving aside the oxymoron, all you are doing is saying anyone who disagrees with your view is not sensible.
I made a lot of money in 2004, 2008 and 2012 following this pollster for the Iowa caucuses.
In Jan 2013 he gave his Bloomberg Speech in which argued the EU needed "fundamental, far-reaching change".
Last March he was saying the EU must have "new mechanisms in place to prevent vast migrations across the continent" and must "bringing back control of Britain's borders".
At Last year's Tory Conference he said "I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement - I will get what Britain needs."
For most of the last year we have been hearing all about the 4 years benefit proposal, his new red line and how a new treaty was the only way that would be safe enough to guarantee British interests.
And now Auntie Angela has told him, the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation, that he can't have that either, and that there will be no treaty.
His three remaining negotiating positions are promises to give us what we already have or what everyone wants.
You would have to be a pretty committed, dyed in the wool Tory to describe that as any sort of success.
I'd be very surprised if he did.
My guess and expectation is that Trump will have relatively few supporters like that. Corbyn like, most of his support will have come from outside the mainstream political process. His supporters are likely to find themselves bewildered and ineffective in this process.
I therefore think that someone who is a mainstream politician is very likely to outperform him in Iowa, particularly if the Republican establishment start to throw their weight behind him. The results of Selzer's polls have generally been good because she contacts the correct electorate for the Caucus.
The big loser here is Rubio. A poorish third or fourth will put pressure on him and his supporters to get behind Cruz to stop Trump. Carson will soon have more time to investigate his pyramids.
One from each sorry party of lowlifes. Mone is the biggest disgrace of all time.
If he does poorly in New Hampshire too, his price must surely fly out.
This complete bollocks from Johnson.
A sure fire televisual feast on the Beeb.
1) More competitiveness in the EU - which everyone wants
2) More than one currency in the EU - like saying more than one language, there is, and its here to stay
3) No tie in to the words "every closer union" - but still subject to the federalist ECJ
In other words nothing.'
Yep - exactly as jokingly predicted here a few weeks ago. Next step - rename the status quo as 'Associate Membership'.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/a-dangerous-holiday.html
A shocking allegation that .... hic .... I'm sure you can substantiate ... hic ....
I'll not be voting for either.
Expect an endless torrent of LIES from the Remain camp.
The Leave campaign should focus on calmly and clearly presenting the FACTS.
The ECJ is completely different. This is one of the pillars of the EU and it deals with issues where either there is conflict between two parts of EU legislation or where a country (or a company) is failing to abide by its obligations under EU law. As such it is far more political and the solutions tend to be more political as well. But it is worth noting that it does have the right to levy hefty fines against any government or company who fails to bide by its rulings and these are enforced through the EU treaties. These fines come in two parts - a lump sum for the breach plus a daily fine for every day the breach continues. And these are not small amounts and tend to be in the tens of millions building to hundreds of millions in the most serious cases. The recent fines against the UK for failing to introduce new energy rules were £250,000 a day for every day of non compliance.
I like the UK. I like the EU. These are not incompatible statements.
Just like I might flee if Britain continues down the sorry path it finds itself on at the moment. Always fancied Canada...
There is an intellectual case for federalism in the EU - it is just not one that I agree with. But that doesn't mean that those who want 'more EU' are wrong nor that they should be told to leave the UK to get what they want.
1. The EU would lose a reluctant member.
2. I think it would force it to address it's democratic deficit.
Really, leaving the EU could be the best thing for us, and for the people of the continent.
1. Not one Guardian columnist - usually 2.
2. Only one leftie (New Statesman).
3. A journalist from the Sun!
Clearly the Guardian doesn't. SkyAnuska as his boss???
We live in a world where the population is very mobile. This can present an opportunity for people to move to (and re-enforce) places that suit their political/economic needs, rather than trying endlessly to change the place they currently live.
It's a city-state-esque ideology of how we can organise ourselves and be happy with our lot.