Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cross-over voting could be the biggest threat to Trump in N
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cross-over voting could be the biggest threat to Trump in New Hampshire the 1st full primary state:
One of the hardest thing for many in Britain to understand is that each state in the US operates its primaries differently. Iowa has it caucuses where the party choices are determined in 1,600 precinct meeting across the state. The organisation of these is carried out by the parties.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Was it cross-overs/three quidders which got Corbyn elected?
I suspect the craftier thing to do is to dribble them out, perhaps starting with 3-4 where you know you can get an easy win for the "official" Labour party [i.e. where the local infrastructure remains loyal] to snuff out any momentum
But it's not going to happen. cf James Purnell.
There are ways to mess with him big style - if they have got the balls
As Labour unwinds from it's historical high point (the Atlee government - which imposed a savage austerity undreamed of by G Osborne....) it has become ever more insistent about being a moral crusade. For something. And one can never leave the crusade - it is a blood oath....
Blair seemed to offer them a chance to become the SPD(*) of UK politics. They can't go that way, again. That road is blocked.
All they have left is screaming "we are not the Tories". Louder and louder. Anyone who leaves will be a heretic to the faith. All such will be stoned to death....
Labour is lucky in one thing - that UKIP is fringe party which hasn't reached the organisational level of the Greens. Otherwise it would go through them like a chainsaw through cheese.
(*) Not a mis-spelling
George Pataki, come on down. Your moment has arrived at last.
Perhaps general elections would be more fun and more exciting if there were literally no opinion polls. I don't mean that opinion polls were banned - in which case they would be done illicitly and by convoluted means, and the results leaked anyway - but a hypothetical world in which it has literally never occurred to anyone to do an opinion poll. People would have rough expectations of what they think the result will be, but getting the results coming in would be the exciting and revealing bit much more than it is now.
Lemmy Kilmister, the lead singer and bassist of Motörhead and a heavy metal icon for six decades, passed away Monday after a battle with cancer. Kilmister turned 70 on Christmas Eve.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lemmy-kilmister-motorhead-singer-and-heavy-metal-legend-dead-at-70-20151228#ixzz3vgKR0Pez
RIP
Tactical voting and gameplaying is a complex business and a natural supporters of Party / Candidate A will only support B to stop C if:
1. There is a natural alignment of interests between A and B.
2. B is seen as a close second preference to A, with C much more disliked.
3. B is seen as having a good chance of beating C, while A is not.
One reason why the Lib Dems did so disastrously in 2015 is because they'd built up sizable tactical votes based on the above assumptions, which then all fell apart this year.
In the US it's even more complex given that there are two simultaneous contests, one for each party, which means that there's a fourth criterion: that the opportunity cost in voting for B to stop C does not excessively adversely affect candidate A in the parallel race.
Mike's assertion that "if the objective is to stop Trump then it will be the Republican opponent who looks best able to win [who will benefit most]" is right but it's a mighty big 'if'. Are Democrats really that keen to drop Cruz or Rubio into the nomination when they may well be stronger candidates and are of the Republican right (and very much so in Cruz's case)? Besides, at the moment there is no candidate who looks best able to stop Trump: they're too closely clustered.
And then there's the impact Mike rightly notes on the Democrat race. While on the one hand Hillary looks to have the nomination all but sown up, that's not reflected in NH itself. Sanders could easily win there and is almost certain to poll strongly. Put another way, Democrats in the state do have an interest in influencing their own race: will they see the Republican contest as so critical that it overrides their ability to vote for Hillary or Sanders and potentially hand that contest to their less-favoured candidate?
Finally, there's the mechanics of this: how is it to come about? Organic, voter-driven dynamics are just about the only way. No candidate could endorse such a scheme which would look desperate and would in all probability be counter-productive (or at the least, an ineffective way of spending cash). Can such a grass-roots campaign be effective? Again, it's asking a lot.
However, having said all that, the Democrat contest is on a knife-edge with just a couple of points in it, so even small factors need to be taken into account and if there is differential switching between Hillary's and Sanders' supporters, that may affect the outcome, particularly as - as Mike implies - it's Hillary's supporters, with their eye on November, who'd be most likely to crossover.
Trump 21
Rubio 15
Christie 12
Cruz 10
Kasich 13
Bush 7
Carson 6
Fiorina 5
Paul 4
A by-election will be held on the eighth Thursday following a vacancy unless:
- That date falls between the fourth Thursday in July and the first Thursday in September (inclusive), in which case the election will be the second Thursday in September.
- That date falls between the fourth Thursday in December and the second Thursday in January (inclusive), in which case the election will be the third Thursday in January.
- A scheduled election covering the entire district for which the vacancy exists is already scheduled at a point between four and eight weeks ahead. In such circumstances, the new by-election shall be held concurrently with the already scheduled election.
- The election would be scheduled within the last four months of the natural term of the former office-holder, in which the vacancy will be left open until the naturally-scheduled election,
Or some such similar set of rules.
Even if their figures are right (and from memory, ARG don't have the best track record), with four candidates in the 10-15 range, there's no clear rival to Trump for tactical voters to unite around. Rubio is second here but Cruz was second in the latest CBS poll, while Christie has also scored a second place this month with Kasich also in the mix.
If they really have the balls then half plus one defections will rob Corbyn of the LotO title, but again I can't see the MPs having anything but loyalty to their party even as it is taken over around them. By the time the deselections start it will be too late.
There must be a reasonable chance in a few safe seats of the popular incumbent MP standing as an independent if deselected, or will they all meekly disappear?
- a reasonable Labour majority to defend
- a centrist local party
- a good personal reputation
and it might be nice if you also had a local LibDem vote to squeeze. (Not that there are many seats like that anymore.)
I don't know what the BBC license fee is these days, but I can assure you that BBC America is doing its best to increase its revenue.
The beeb fired Clarkson last March, but Beeb America still show about 15 episodes of Top Gear each week. In addition we've had Best of Top Gear, Top Gear - Epic Fails, compered by Hammond, Top Gear Top 41, compered by Hammond, and recently Top Gear - The presenters, with two episodes each on Hammond, May and Clarkson. All except the Top Gear original episodes and Best of are copyrighted BBC America, but I assume they've made their way to the UK.
Tonight they showed series 22, including the sad final episode. The first commercial in every break was Matt Leblanc explaining that he refused to work on compilation show Top Gear:The Races until they gave him a signed photo of James May. It starts in a couple of weeks.
So full marks for them maximizing their properties. I hope it reduces the licence fee, but have my doubts.
I was half asleep listening to BBC World Service but am sure I heard that Amazon Prime got 30 million new subscribers worldwide over the Christmas period. If true that is phenomenal.
The boys have now started shooting for their Prime show.
I don't think there is great demand out there for an SDP 2 like there was in 1981 either. Dave Cameron is no Thatcher.
Mr. B, could be wrong, but I think filming started a couple of months ago.
That 30 million will include people who would've got Amazon Prime anyway (it gets pushed an obnoxious amount when you're checking out), but it still sounds pretty high. The viewing figures exceeded 300m, indeed, they exceeded the F1 global audience. Be interesting to see the approach Amazon takes on series DVDs.
It seems clear that Corbyn and his fellow travellers won't stop until they have expunged anyone with remotely mainstream views from the party, why don't the moderate MPs have the balls to stand up to it? Will the rumoured reshuffle focus their minds I wonder, with rumoured promotion for Diane Abbot and talk of Livingstone and Galloway being back in the party, they must realise that they have to act now or never - if only to save their own careers!
You may be right, all I know is they are filming. The production company is apparently W Chump and Sons Ltd. Sounds like Clarkson.
I didn't mean to suggest that they all are getting prime to see carshow with no name yet.
Prime has been a huge success for Amazon regardless of the boys.
Netflix produces House of Cards dvds, so I expect Amazon will too. Revenue is revenue. Unlike House of Cards, which releases the whole series at once, the Prime series will be released an episode each week.
Oh what a wonderful article - if only Cumberbatch et al would take heed!
Interesting thought though - beats that Israeli transvestite.
Dave should immediately call his bluff, say it's a fantastic idea and he's looking forward to the first debate!
Still, better for Corbyn to discuss that than his friends in Hamas, his unilateralism, desire to abolish the army or quoting Mao.
Labour MPs facing the chop next week include Rosie Winterton, chief whip - Alan Campbell, deputy chief whip - Hilary Benn, shadow foreign secretary - Maria Eagle, shadow defence secretary and Angela Eagle, shadow business secretary.
The shadow cabinet could very soon look like an old boys club.
Russia are the early favorites in the betting.
It's possible that Trump still goes on to win in NH due to the fragmentation of the establishment candidate , but so long as Rubio comes in second , he can even afford to lose in South Carolina just so long as he wins in Nevada .
..I expect Rubio to be behind Cruz until possibly April but sooner or later he is going to start winning as the race moves away from the Old South and Bible Belt
...Nate Silver is correct , those Blue States are weighted in favour of a ''moderate conservative '' and have more delegates ...Marco Rubio will be the nominee and is very likely to defeat Hilary
In some ways Trumpism is like a Ponzi Scheme that relies heavily on consumer confidence , but when that confidence is undermined it collapses like a house of cards
The only polls that have real predictive value are those about 3-4 days before the actual vote
Rubio has purposely played it low key to avoid being the front runner and fall guy but come January his campaign is going to ratchet things up and slowly build momentum with a string of endorsements , including two previous NH primary winners , Mccain and Romney ...Rubio could very well win in NH but even if he doesn't a good second place is a victory of sorts that will keep him in the race ....only Trump can beat Rubio in NH !
Besides, it's a daft idea on its own merits. There are far more effective ways of holding leaders to account than debates, which only really have value in an election time when the public are being asked to assess the potential PMs against each other.
THIS is the best political analysis that I have read on the so called Trump phenomena .........
NED MADDEN
Anyone who thinks Trump will win the GOP nomination ... let alone the general election ... hasn't been paying attention to the Blaring Trumpet himself, who's been telling us in every way possible (except for actually saying it straight out) that while he loves RUNNING for President he has zero interest in actually BEING President ... an all-consuming but relatively low-paying, thankless job requiring a lot of hard work, little reward and much compromise, none of which appeals to Trump.
Most importantly for Trump, losing even a single primary or caucus would be a catastrophic personal failure that cannot be hidden or denied. The headlines will read "Trump Loses," an intolerable situation for a self--described Winner Who NEVER Loses.
If Trump is still in the race on Feb. 1 he will definitely lose in Iowa, and for a week until New Hampshire he'll have to deal with the humiliating truth that on his VERY FIRST EVER U.S. electoral ballot, he LOST. Ouch, ouch and super ouch.
Aside from crashing his own self-inflated image of himself as a Winner above all else (which ignores his many bankrupticies and other business failures), a run for the nomination will require Trump to spend money he simply does not have.
Obama's 2012 reelection campaign cost $1.1 billion. Forbes and Blumberg put Trump's wealth at $4 billion, of which only $330 million is in cash and securities. He'd blow through that amount fairly quickly and then need to begin selling off real estate holdings at fire sale prices to get the money to pay bills on the cash-hungry campaign trail. SuperPACs and other sources of revenue won't much diminish Trump's own YOOOJ! spending requirements.
And despite it all Trump knows that in the end he'd suffer a Goldwater-level defeat by Hillary in the general election.
No, Trump knows how to play the odds and he's already gotten everything he wanted in the first place fro the 2016 campaign ... global personal notoriety and a mega-buffing of the Trump brand. He's not going to throw all that away simply to spend his own money getting made to look the fool when the actual voting starts.
Prediction: the Trumpet will Jump It before Feb. 1. If he doesn't quit the race before the first votes are cast, then he's even crazier than he's made himself out to be.
To all you Trumpistas who find this analysis not to your liking, relax. I actually want Trump to stay in. He's totally destroying the GOP for at least a generation to come, and his self-destruction is going to be even more heart warming to observe.
My original point was that Corbyn asking for an annual debate is just trying to play politics and call the PM scared of debating. If Corbyn wants to be so silly, then Dave should just play him at his own game by cheerily welcoming the idea, probably with a subtle jibe about him being happy for Corbyn to show he's a completely unsuitable PM to a larger audience!
The comparison is less with Jeremy Corbyn and more with UKIP, it seems to me.
Democrats for Rubio is as fanciful as Tories for Burnham tbh.
Otherwise, I think this is one of those articles where a candidate is assumed to share the analysis of the writer. Trump probably doesn't see defeat as inevitable and surely doesn't see the prize as undesirable. Lincoln, I believe, said, "Once the Presidential bug gets into a man it burrows deep."
I very much doubt his net worth is anywhere near $4bn. He's the pointy bit on top of a mountain of leverage. If asset prices were to fall, or interest rates were to rise, he might find that his net worth diminished very rapidly.
I disagree with pretty much all John Bercow's says, but he is right that the PMQs format shows MPs from all sides in a very poor light. A more civilised format including the public might assist in countering the stereotype of politicians being aloof and out of touch with the average man in the street.
I think he could beat Hillary, although she would have to be favourite,
The candidate the Democrats truly want to run against is Ted Cruz. He'd go down 55:45 to Hillary.
...just the biggest loser...