Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Trump does win tonight in Iowa he’ll go into New Hampshi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Trump does win tonight in Iowa he’ll go into New Hampshire next week in an overwhelming position
Well we’ve got there at last. After months of speculation, polling and debates, the first state to decide in the long-drawn out nomination process, Iowa, will do so tonight. My guess is that we should be getting the first results in both GOP Democrat races after 2am tomorrow morning.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"“You have a lousy record - 16 years you haven’t picked a winner. Please pick a winner this time.”
Does put the argument that Iowa is somehow decisive into context doesn't it? Having said that I agree with Mike that a Trump win will put him in a very strong position going forward.
Meanwhile for the Dems, I'm still in the 'Draft Biden' camp.
Leigh Day – which is under investigation for alleged unscrupulous practices – said it was acting for about 80 Afghans who said they were unlawfully detained or mistreated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3425756/Now-troops-face-hounded-court-TALIBAN-Iraq-witch-hunt-lawyers-set-sights-Afghan-claims.html
Mrs Bouquet...lady of the house speaking....oh wonderful news...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/12128905/Cherie-Blair-fires-first-shot-in-legal-battle-against-Governments-buy-to-let-tax.html
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise-merkel-die-meisten-werden-zurueckkehren-muessen-14043375.html
And she is going for the turnover tax, not the Stamp Duty surcharge.
Merkel's a moron.
SNP ministers want a system known as per capita indexation that would “protect” their future income tax revenues from the impact of Scotland having lower population growth.
However, the Treasury has argued this would be unfair on the rest of the UK as increasing amounts of income tax raised in England would be used to fund services in Scotland despite the levy being devolved.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/12132695/Nicola-Sturgeon-and-David-Cameron-urged-to-save-Scottish-powers-deal-from-collapse.html
Thus grief still treads upon the heels of pleasure:
Married in haste, we may repent at leisure.
The real story here is Rubio rising and when it becomes clear that he is the establishment's best chance of winning , then he will not only win the nomination but the presidency too
On topic: Sensible enough betting position from Mike, personally I can't have Rubio at 3.3 though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp6sTe1cNqs
Donald Trump is an egotistic reality TV star ; a unhinged megalomaniac and Dr Strangelove who has temporarily captured the imagination of some low information voters
Trump is a political Ponzi scheme that exists on bluff and consumer confidence , but sooner or later it will collapse like a house of cards
On place names, Bombay to Mumbai confuses me - the only guy I know from there calls it Bombay - as to my knowledge it isn't like the Brits renamed it from what it had been called. The city grew up around the British presence and was always called Bombay wasn't it? And it and Mumbai were local names for spaces where the city was built?
He is not a politician ,; he is primarily an entertainer ..every time I see him I am reminded of some gormless WWF wrestler showboating to the crowd ...he has a very limited vocabulary and relies on repition and rude facial expressions to get his point across ; he's not even a good demagogue but is merely a comedic parody of a demagogue ; Trumpolini I presume ?
Trump in contrast is strong in Nevada, South Carolina, Wisconsin and even Florida
'Trust me for make the right deal' said the Prime Minister
Regina versus Greed and Entitlement ?
Trolololool
R v R
Anyway, Bombay and Mumbai are just different ways of spelling the same name using English approximation to the way it is pronounced.
Trump is on 38% with Latinos, Rubio - 8%.
No it is you who is utterly deluded ; you remind me of the infamous ''Baghdad Bob'' who was wildly predicting the latest Iraqi army victories as the US marines were booting his door down and dragging him out of there
If you were Sherlock Holmes you couldn't identify your own shoes by looking down
Trump 27% (-6 )
Cruz 26 (+3)
Rubio 22 (+8)
Tight three-horse race that will be won on turnout.
If he really wanted to lose he could always try booking an Elvis impersonator to serenade him with 'The Wonder Of You', before calling his voters a bunch of bigots, but I suspect even that wouldn't do the trick.
Trump is like the Wizard of Oz hiding behind the curtains and fooling all those political munchkins , but sooner or later they will figure things out and he will be leaving in a hot air balloon ...Trump's supporters are political munchkins , some of them scarecrows clearly in search of a brain
If that is an accurate poll then it should be clear to anyone able to read between the lines that Rubio is going to be the nominee
It's worse than that. The people who are 'negotiating' from our side don't actually care. All they want is the appearance of a deal.
Are they going to deport 3,000 people a day?
If not [and they won't] then, even assuming the numbers don't rise this year [and they will], the overall number will only rise.
It's a mess with no easy solutions.
Thanks.
I'd love to see a documentary about the 1975 Banqiao dam disaster which, along with other dam failures at the same time and the associated famine and disease, killed 176,000 people. It would probably require Chinese government approval though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Alternatively, one on the great Sheffield dam disaster that killed at least 240:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sheffield_Flood
If this was the UK I'd be discounting all but the certain to vote, so I expect a tight result.
Away with you to burn Harry Potter books....
In those circumstances, how many of the current refugees are going to go home, especially if support for rebuilding is available?
I was very interested (and, if I'm honest, surprised) to read of the very different offending rates for Syrians versus other migrant groups:
"The Syrian refugees intentionally welcomed by Merkel have so far proven overwhelmingly law abiding. According to a Jan. 8 police report from North Rhine-Westphalia, the western German state that includes Cologne, only 0.5 percent of Syrian migrants in the city were caught committing crimes within a year.
By contrast, among migrants from North Africa, as many as 40 percent were caught committing crimes within a year, the report says.
Virtually none of the North Africans arriving in Germany have proven to be genuine refugees: last year Germany granted some form of protection to just 0.19 percent of Tunisian migrants, 3.74 percent of Moroccans and 1.6 percent of Algerians."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-challenges-in-idUSKCN0V6173
Here are a few alternatives I found on Google
[I wish you were right]
The general point made by OldKingCole is a good one.
The supply of migrants is a curve. If we executed every single one that arrived, none would arrive. If we promised each $1m/year, then Syria would be empty. For every migrant, the risk of crossing, the likelihood success, etc., compared to the consequences of staying is a personal calculation.
We need to make it more expensive to come to Europe, and more attractive to stay in their home country. In this way we fundamentally move the curve.
So: that means we (as in the Europeans in general) spend a few billions (or even tens of billions) on making places in the Middle East which are safe, and where there is adequate food and water. If we could make these "Special Economic Zones", and exempt exports from there of duties. This should make these places less attractive to leave.
We then need to make the journey less attractive by increasing border security, and by escorting boats back to their point of embarking, rather than bringing them to Europe.
And for those who do make it, we need to make sure that a meaningful proportion are deported.
Together these should move the curve. Will they get rid of all migrants? No. Could they meaningfully reduce them? Yes.
There's the al Nusra troublemakers as well, and the fact that there will be a temptation for a lot of score settling between communities. As I've said before, if we do get a fragile peace we'll need to maintain it with f'loads of money. Not just to rebuild, but also bribe people who might be inclined to fight. That's not something I like to do, but it might be necessary and better than the alternative. (*)
I still think my tentative proposal is the best way forward: turn the country into a series of semi-autonomous regions. The vast amount of internal and external migration would make that easier: the country has already somewhat differentiated.
(*) A recent Economist (yes, I know) had an interesting article on ?Liberian? fighters who are being dissuaded from fighting by small bribes and help with other occupations. Give them some seeds and pigs and they're much less likely to travel abroad to fight. Syria was much richer than Liberia, but the same probably holds true.
But he's not. Trump is in the 30-40% bracket and comfortably outpolls Bush and Rubio. Even if all the moderates drop out, *some* of their support will go to Trump and this should be enough to carry him over the line, even if it becomes a two horse race.
http://capx.co/george-osborne-probably-wont-even-stand-to-be-the-next-tory-leader/
Worth a read, though a lot of it is contentious.
Interesting analysis – looks like genuine Syrian refugees are law abiding on the whole and appreciative of the opportunity afforded them by the host country. – No surprise that illegal migrants who have shown no respect for the rule of law continue to do so. – Another reason why helping Syrians based in the Turkish and Jordanian refugee camps was a wise move.