Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump could take New Hampshire with just 29% because opposi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump could take New Hampshire with just 29% because opposition to him is split amongst so many opponents
The big political betting story over the next few weeks is going to be the fight for the Republican nomination in the first states to decide. In Iowa, with it caucuses where people vote at precinct meetings it’s looking pretty good for Ted Cruz who is strong favourite.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
meanwhile a (peripherally) mao-inspired cock-up..
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/07/china-share-trading-halted-after-market-plunges-7-in-opening-minutes
I control everything. Mwuhahahahaha.
(*) I obviously don't bother with Farron.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2016/jan/07/eu-referendum-in-campaign-ad-pokes-fun-at-rivals-video
One thing that's perhaps noteworthy is that while for Bush and Rubio there are just 9% and 8% undecided in the head-to-head figures respectively, for Cruz that jumps to 15%: he too has no small number of Republicans who aren't enamoured of him. Cruz's poor performance in the three-way polls is also revealing, suggesting that even if he does win Iowa (not a foregone conclusion nearly four weeks out), he'll struggle to build on that come NH, even if other candidates pull out, and even with the momentum that Iowa would give him. With Trump still well clear in S Carolina too (albeit with a largish Carson vote yet to disperse), the Donald remains the man to beat.
As an aside, how nice to see such innovative polling.
"Contradictory" is
Personally, I would favour membership of the EEA with what amounts to an associate membership of the EU. If that were the answer, however, that means conceding that there will be very little change on immigration which is a touch button issue for many on the Out side.
It also involves us accepting that EU policy will continue to evolve with minimal input from us and that policy, in so far as it relates to the Single Market will regulate our terms of trade with the EU. There is a risk, for example, that without the impetus that the UK brings the single market in services will simply not develop in the EU in the way that we want it to.
My concern remains that unless the issue of EZ dominance of QMV is resolved this may well happen anyway so the price of the EU sticking its undemocratic nose into a wide range of issues which are not related to the single market is not worth paying.
This is a complex and finely balanced decision. The chances of the public debate on these issues being sufficiently nuanced to explain the various implications is of course approaching nil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12086094&cc=12083568
This concern is only partially alleviated by the fact that the shape of the EU if we remain is not exactly certain either.
Leave's incompetence in not coming up with firm - or even consistent - answers to such obvious questions does not bode well.
We would no more be able to dictate terms to the rEU than indy-Scotland could dictate terms to the rUK.
The referendum is about sovereignty, free trade and controlling our borders, all things out of our control whilst we're in the EU. You clearly look into things very deeply, an overwhelming majority doesn't. Remain is in danger of over analysing a very straightforward scenario.
'Leave' haven't got a position on what 'Leave' is.
Recall how Cameron would be 'forced' to debate Salmond?
How the UK would 'have to' share the £?
So much promising of that which was not within their gift.....
Now if that's not want you wish for that's fine, but Remain is over complicating a very straightforward scenario, deliberately some may say.
We buy cars from Germany, we sell arms to Saudi, we decide who comes here, we don't give votes to prisoners etc etc. There is absolutely no reason why we should spend £billions a year propping up weak economies in the EU, we have far better things to do with the money.
Ask the flood victims up North.
We don't need to be part of a 28 member federalist bureaucracy in order to run an efficient nation, it's very straightforward.
Similarly, it is completely dishonest to claim that any State has full sovereignty in a 19th century sense anymore. The US is bound by its NAFTA and WTO obligations and will soon be bound by new commitments from the free trade arrangement with the EU, as will we of course. There really is no such thing as free trade. There is managed trade between and within certain blocs which requires compliance with the rules within and between these blocs. And the conditions of membership of the EEA, for example, do not allow us to fully control our borders.
That does look to be a weak link in the Leave case.
Its a point I have been making on here repeatedly. Unless Leave can hammer out a clear, coherent alternative on which they can be consistent they will not even be at the races.
Personally, I would favour membership of the EEA with what amounts to an associate membership of the EU. If that were the answer, however, that means conceding that there will be very little change on immigration which is a touch button issue for many on the Out side.
It also involves us accepting that EU policy will continue to evolve with minimal input from us and that policy, in so far as it relates to the Single Market will regulate our terms of trade with the EU. There is a risk, for example, that without the impetus that the UK brings the single market in services will simply not develop in the EU in the way that we want it to.
My concern remains that unless the issue of EZ dominance of QMV is resolved this may well happen anyway so the price of the EU sticking its undemocratic nose into a wide range of issues which are not related to the single market is not worth paying.
This is a complex and finely balanced decision. The chances of the public debate on these issues being sufficiently nuanced to explain the various implications is of course approaching nil.
Good luck explaining that to 99% of the population.
The referendum is about sovereignty, free trade and controlling our borders, all things out of our control whilst we're in the EU. You clearly look into things very deeply, an overwhelming majority doesn't. Remain is in danger of over analysing a very straightforward scenario.
So what is the post-Leave scenario?
We trade freely with who we wish to, make our own laws and control our own borders.
Now if that's not want you wish for that's fine, but Remain is over complicating a very straightforward scenario, deliberately some may say.
We buy cars from Germany, we sell arms to Saudi, we decide who comes here, we don't give votes to prisoners etc etc. There is absolutely no reason why we should spend £billions a year propping up weak economies in the EU, we have far better things to do with the money.
Ask the flood victims up North.
So we are not going to join the EEA?
No idea, don't care, 99% of the electorate have never heard of it. We don't need to be part of anything in order to buy and sell things people want.
Look, if you don't share Leave's confidence in us thriving as a stand alone nation, trading freely with the rest of the world, I'm sorry, but I have great faith in us. I don't need to hold hands with the Maltese, Croatians and Slovenians to feel confident.
Or was that something else?
Shouldn't they rebrand?
The answer to that question to plenty on here is None. Good for them but please don't patronise those of us that have complete confidence in us as a nation to thrive without the hindrance of bailing out the Eurozone to the tune of £billions.
If we join the EEA we do not have control over our borders. But it seems that some people on the Leave side are proposing that we do join, while others are saying we should not. So what would I be voting for if I voted Leave?
Likewise, free trade agreements are the result of negotiation between parties. Why would the UK - a country of 60 million - get a better deal from the US or China for British businesses than the EU - a bloc of over 450 million people, containing 4 G8 economies?
What happens in the event of a vote to leave would be down to the government of the day. It would be up to them to determine the best course of action. Maybe that would be to negotiate to stay in the EEA, maybe it wouldn't.
Having said all of that, I do think this is an issue for the Leave campaign. The question is, how much of an issue for the Remain campaign is the accusation that a vote to stay in the EU will give future governments carte blanche to take us further in to the EU?
Or are we going to become a nation of smugglers?
Do you really think that if we leave the EU the Germans will stop selling us cars and the French wine? Do you really think that the English speaking City of London will uproot to Gdansk?
Do you honestly believe that emerging markets across the globe won't want to trade freely with us?
If you can pick those apart coherently then Remain gets 90% of the vote.
Both sides need t accept they have hard questions to answer. And that they do need to find answers.
There is already legislation on the books that further integration requires further referenda
Cameron wants reforms, but reform can mean many things. Is the EU going to reform but not necessarily to our advantage.
Both sides are offering pigs in pokes.
If Trump wins NH, that debate on debarring him will look somewhat sillier.
Anyone who actually believes that the GOP will allow a ''reality TV star ''and egomaniac to usurp the nomination must have a shallow , superficial and crudely stereotypical grasp of American politics !
You're muddying the waters by mentioning EEA, the fact is that while in the EU we can't control our borders, outside we have options.
Be under no illusion, an IN vote isn't for the status quo, it's for the foot on the throat.
Oh and please don't pretend you're open to persuasion, you're clearly a committed Inner, good for you, but it's a waste of everybody's time pretending you're open minded.
@Herald_Editor: Gordon Brown says a vote to leave the EU would be a 'betrayal of our history' https://t.co/sYAYqsnbTA
If ANYBODY sells the right stuff at the right price people will trade, it's what has happened for centuries, walk down any high street.
It looks like long held problems are coming home to roost re the economy, and not only in Britain:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35249317
Marks and Spencer chief executive Marc Bolland is to step down in April, the company has said, as it announced its Christmas results.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35248628
George Osborne warns of 'dangerous cocktail' of economic risks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35248798
Mainland Chinese shares stop trading after 7% plunge; again.
It will be interesting to follow the markets this week.
If you are seriously suggesting that the Germans will stop selling us cars you're bonkers.
What is more insidious is change that happens under the existing powers without treaty change. Remain have to accept that will happen too with the helpful support of the CJE who I frankly do not trust to give impartial rulings on matters or to respect the implications of negotiated opt outs. They have a bad track record on that.
If Cruz and Trump take one win each, won't several of the others fade away? May still be good for Rubio.
I have no problem with that.
""What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women," he said. "This is poisoning the climate of our society.""
Being a racist tosser at least as bad as sexual molestation? The view of Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35248601
Trump likely will win NH , but Rubio will come second and THAT will be the real story out of NH ...the unification of the Establishment !..Rubio will also win Nevada !
Trump will not walk it. On the assumption he probably doesn't want the gig anyway, what's the most dramatic time to pull out?
If Cameron can get a reasonable deal, I'd prefer to stay - but if he can't, I'd vote 'Leave'.
But not on the basis of any of the arguments advanced - so far - by 'Leave' - like Scottish independence - I'm not opposed in principle - but I want to see a decent picture of what the alternative might look like.
Like the NATS you believe that 'leaving the EU' (Independence) is an absolute moral good and (to an extent) 'bugger the consequences'.
Not a great position from which to persuade others......
Mr. kle4, that could prove Pyrrhic. A Khan victory would be a major boost for Corbyn, and a London mayor who supports quotas for ethnic minorities in the workplace may not necessarily help Labour further afield.
Trump is about to spend $1 million a day of his own money on campaign advertising, hardly a sign he does not want it
I never thought we'd see Ken and Diane as principle spokesbods. And McMao's personal baggage, and Seumas, and STW on defence and free vote revenge shuffling...
Even Jezza on holiday didn't help, the infighting was just as bad.
We could have a whole thread just on the eff ups since 12th September.
If Trump does take the nomination, Rubio might be a very good fit as running mate though.
I'm not trying to persuade anybody but I'm curious what you define as "a reasonable deal" by Cameron
See my 8:11am post for relevance.
Best for Leave will be the same as it was for the euro - at the end of the day staying in a growing EU is a diminution of our sovereignty.
Dan Hodges
Heading up for Naked Streak. Though it may have to be renamed Naked Swim.
Sadly for commuters in Westminster @DPJHodges had to wear shorts for his "streak" or he could have been arrested https://t.co/W8MjCpRp9N
Why on earth would anyone need to ask this question when -
a) we have the history of the last 40 years to consider - more and more EU control over the UK
b) we have the clearly expressed wish for the future of the majority of other EU states to consider - more and more EU control over the UK
There really shouldn't be any debate about this aspect of the story. EU membership means signing up for ever closer political union - if that is what we want, then fair enough. If it isn't, we should leave.
British insistence on dodging this issue exasperates many Europeans. I've lost count of the times my business and personal contacts in other European countries have said to me something along the lines of 'if you are so unhappy with the direction of the EU, why are you in it? Everyone knows what it is all about'.
Trump polls less than Bernie Sanders ; he only looks like a winner because the establishment have not yet picked their candidate ; furthermore , Trump already has maximum exposure as everyone in the US already knows who Trump is ...he has already hit his ceiling , while Rubio is still coming into focus , but the more that folks see of Rubio the more they like him ...he is the obvious winner to folks who actually know how to read between the lines !
The reason why Trump can get away with saying outrageous things is because all sensible voters realize he can never be president ...he is in fact just a cheerleader , a rodeo clown and court jester ! He is primarily an entertainer where crowds can live vicariously through him , unrestrained by politeness and political correctness
More reshuffling from @jeremycorbyn https://t.co/L5VNYaI5EH
This is getting a bit like the opening night of a particularly tenuous series of Celebrity Big Brother https://t.co/gnEv0qqvIN
Which given the UK's current view would, without some careful and possibly disingenuous positioning, require a(nother) referendum.
But that does not absolve leave from having to form a coherent and credible position. Which they have not.
My biggest fear is a narrow 'leave' vote followed by years of protracted and destabilising argument about our position which severely annoys our friends and neighbours across the channel. If we get a 'leave' vote, expect the leave campaign to further fragment.
That's the trouble with loose categorisation.
Similarly, if Trump has enough support from Republican Party supporters, then the Republican Establishment will be powerless to stop him. The Establishment can't change the rules of the game now and bar him from standing as a candidate in caucuses & primaries, or stop his delegates from entering the Convention.
Secondly, Trump's policies (opposition to immigration, lower taxes etc) aren't inconsistent with Republican Party policies. There would be no strong ideological reasons for the Establishment to oppose him. They may think that he would be a weak candidate, or dislike him as a person, but would still accept him as the candidate if he is the clear winner.
But the political establishment here misleads the public, claiming we can lead/direct things by being at the heart of Europe, and other such deceit.
It's more integration, or exit. That's the case Leave should make.