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 » Super Tuesday: Trump and Clinton didn’t quite get the predi

SystemSystem Posts: 12,267
edited March 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Super Tuesday: Trump and Clinton didn’t quite get the predicted clean sweeps but they’re both stronger favourites

The expectation before last night was that Trump would probably win all but one of the eleven states. As it turned out Trump took 8. Clinton was expected to have almost a clean sweeps but lost four.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    "Trump would probably win all but one of the eleven states"

    Hmmm...Don't think he was a likely winner of either Texas or Minnesota.... And Virginia was a good state for Trump to win.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    CNN call Alaska for Cruz.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    How come Trump does so badly out west??
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    Rubio fell under the 20% threshold for delegates in Texas. If his supporters had all voted tactically for Trump, it would have cost Cruz his home state - and any credibility for Cruz to continue.

    Instead, Rubio's brain-eaters keep his zombie campaign carrying on into the next less-than-exciting episode.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    I thought Rubio won Minnesota??
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    What happens to delegates if their candidate drops out of the race, do they get to choose how they vote at the convention? So if Rubio, Cruz et al stay in the race but late on all but one pull out is it likely all the non Trump delegates will combine behind whoever stays in?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I've heard Rubio several times this morning and what a bitter dickhead he seems.

    Really unpleasant. And I rarely feel like that about a random bloke. He needs to find some dignity or go away.
    MarqueeMark said:

    Rubio fell under the 20% threshold for delegates in Texas. If his supporters had all voted tactically for Trump, it would have cost Cruz his home state - and any credibility for Cruz to continue.

    Instead, Rubio's brain-eaters keep his zombie campaign carrying on into the next less-than-exciting episode.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    I thought Rubio won Minnesota??

    Indeed. I think Mike means Cruz won Oklahoma.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    Father Jack may have left us, but it seems his spirit may still be around:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35688401
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited March 2016
    MarqueeMark said:

    Father Jack may have left us, but it seems his spirit may still be around:

    Heck I'm still here .... :smile:

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,080
    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Rawzer.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    edited March 2016
    JackW said:



    Heck I'm still here .... :smile:

    ARSE!
  • rawzerrawzer Posts: 189
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Rawzer.

    Thanks, I have lurked for years :)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    rawzer said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Welcome to pb.com, Mr. Rawzer.

    Thanks, I have lurked for years :)
    Welcome indeed!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,756
    MarqueeMark said:

    Father Jack may have left us, but it seems his spirit may still be around:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35688401

    Marvellous. There's even an episode of Father Ted which involves a priest who collects Nazi memorabilia.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MarqueeMark said:

    JackW said:



    Heck I'm still here .... :smile:

    ARSE!
    It's coming ....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Welcome, and Cruz gains Alaska
    rawzer said:

    What happens to delegates if their candidate drops out of the race, do they get to choose how they vote at the convention? So if Rubio, Cruz et al stay in the race but late on all but one pull out is it likely all the non Trump delegates will combine behind whoever stays in?

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    If Trumps wins primary and loses general, who is front runner for GOP in 2020??
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,004
    I don't see any prospect of a GOP stitch-up. It'd send the party into civil war, particularly now that some establishment figures are coming down on Trump's side for endorsements. It'd also be a massive two fingers to the public. If there was a time to stitch Trump up it was last June.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    JackW said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    JackW said:



    Heck I'm still here .... :smile:

    ARSE!
    It's coming ....
    Are we getting a Euroarse? Eurocul? Euroarsch?
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    rawzer said:

    What happens to delegates if their candidate drops out of the race, do they get to choose how they vote at the convention? So if Rubio, Cruz et al stay in the race but late on all but one pull out is it likely all the non Trump delegates will combine behind whoever stays in?

    Depends on state I think. Some are legally obliged to vote for original candidate. Others have complete fredom of choice, but most of those will be loyal to direction of candidate.

    I have heard Trump may have issue that some of his delegates might even switch from him on first ballot, as they are party officials without any real loyalty to him.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Just replaced the results panel with that from Real Clear Politics much more comprehensive.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    If Trumps wins primary and loses general, who is front runner for GOP in 2020??

    None Of The Above
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,312
    edited March 2016
    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    Do you think Cruz or Rubio could beat Hillary?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MaxPB said:

    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.

    You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? .... :smile:

    The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,004
    rawzer said:

    What happens to delegates if their candidate drops out of the race, do they get to choose how they vote at the convention?

    Generally, they'll be advised on how to vote by the man or woman they're pledged to, which invariably means 'vote for the nominee-designate, for party unity'. I'm not sure there's any formal rule; it's decades since there's been a brokered convention where these things have mattered. Back when brokered conventions were the norm there were far fewer pledged delegates and people were more free to do their own thing, often within state delegations.
    rawzer said:

    So if Rubio, Cruz et al stay in the race but late on all but one pull out is it likely all the non Trump delegates will combine behind whoever stays in?

    I very much doubt that. I don't accept the model that splits the field into Trump and non-Trump. If, say, we get to the convention with just Trump and Cruz still standing, I could see quite a few Kasich, Rubio and Carson delegates backing the Donald, for different reasons.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Wanderer said:

    JackW said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    JackW said:



    Heck I'm still here .... :smile:

    ARSE!
    It's coming ....
    Are we getting a Euroarse? Eurocul? Euroarsch?
    It's a fantastic time for ARSE followers.

    You get a EURO-ARSE and a US-ARSE. in one year. Lucky, lucky PBers .... :smiley:
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    Voters are saying we need a new establishment. In the US. In Europe. The message is the same.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.

    You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? .... :smile:

    The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
    You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    Cruz may have got the headline wins in Alaska and Oklahoma, but combined it gave him a margin of just 3 extra delegates over Trump.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    Do you think Cruz or Rubio could beat Hillary?
    Cruz would be worse than Trump. Rubio would have a shout, which is why the GOP establishment have been desperate for him to do better - all in vain.

    It's Clinton v Trump in November with Hillary emerging a comfortable winner.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    HRC in many ways has a better CV as a politician than Bill did at the same stage. She will be an excellent President.

    Looking forward to the first product of the EuroARSCH. It seems a long time coming...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    Do you think Cruz or Rubio could beat Hillary?
    Cruz would be worse than Trump. Rubio would have a shout, which is why the GOP establishment have been desperate for him to do better - all in vain.

    It's Clinton v Trump in November with Hillary emerging a comfortable winner.
    The GOP establishment wants Rubio to save its own neck. They don;t really care about beating Hillary Clinton. Nothing much would change, even if Rubio did beat Clinton.

    That is what Trump is all about.
  • NorfolkTilIDieNorfolkTilIDie Posts: 1,268
    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    edited March 2016
    Rubio finally won a state.

    I bet his odds on Betfair must be close to 1.01 on Betfair now :smiley:
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.
    Sorry - you are saying the school/University attendance is as big a deal as family dynasties ?

    Kudos for the Republicans for at least not nominating Jeb Bush.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school.
    They didn't...

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,567
    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    Do you think Cruz or Rubio could beat Hillary?
    Cruz would be worse than Trump. Rubio would have a shout, which is why the GOP establishment have been desperate for him to do better - all in vain.

    It's Clinton v Trump in November with Hillary emerging a comfortable winner.
    Yep, it's Trump vs Clinton. Barring the incidents Mike mentions, plus also the possibility of a major financial scandal engulfing Trump (aren't his accounts being audited yet again?).
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.
    Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.
    Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
    How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,567
    MarqueeMark said:

    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school.
    They didn't...

    All in the Bullingdon Club though.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    foxinsoxuk said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Looking forward to the first product of the EuroARSCH. It seems a long time coming...
    Thank you but we'll have no foreign fiddling with my ARSE - Continentals will LEAVE it alone, it will REMAIN British to the core.

  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    MaxPB said:

    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.

    You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? .... :smile:

    The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
    You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.
    How many college votes does oklahoma have? California?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited March 2016
    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,390
    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    Pulpstar said:

    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.

    Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,567
    Christie looks like he's swallowed the world's biggest wasp, standing behind Trump in the winners speech. Boy he really must want to be attorney general or veep or something.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    flightpath01 said:

    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.
    Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.
    Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
    How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
    60% of republicans party feel betrayed by their party. You cannot get away from that number.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Pulpstar said:

    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.

    Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,567
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.

    Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.
    They'll swing back the minute the choice is Trump or Clinton.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    lol
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Yesterday the Southern states turned out very well for HRC. The states that went for Saunders are pretty safe seats for the Democrats. Interestingly ditto for the Republicans, with Trump being the more centrist candidate too.

    I think that HRC has a pretty good coalition, will do well with women and swing voters as well as core Democratic voters, and has a well drilled machine behind her. It remains to be seen if the Republican ground game turns out for Trump.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Jim Pickard
    Grassroots Out says its application for Out designation will be 4000 pages long: "It will be War and Peace." https://t.co/RoMMFgkQQb
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    edited March 2016
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.

    Maybe they think the FBI will do its duty and arrest Hillary.
    Betfair doesn' think that either, Biden has gone out to 200s.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    Opps there was also the war of 1925 with Mexico.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited March 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    foxinsoxuk said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    HRC in many ways has a better CV as a politician than Bill did at the same stage. She will be an excellent President.
    Sadly in the way of having charisma to burn and world-class oratory as Bill did she fails dismally.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    The CNN exit polls says different.

    Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.

    Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rottenborough said:

    JackW said:

    tlg86 said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    Do you think Cruz or Rubio could beat Hillary?
    Cruz would be worse than Trump. Rubio would have a shout, which is why the GOP establishment have been desperate for him to do better - all in vain.

    It's Clinton v Trump in November with Hillary emerging a comfortable winner.
    Yep, it's Trump vs Clinton. Barring the incidents Mike mentions, plus also the possibility of a major financial scandal engulfing Trump (aren't his accounts being audited yet again?).
    Doesn't mean anything - in the US it's a negotiation. Mate of mine has been audited every year since he was 18 & has never paid a penalty. I think the IRS is a bit wary of him, though, because when he was 18 (his first adult filing) they challenged a bunch of business dinners that his Dad had got him to pay for. They expected a negotiation/settlement (as did my mate's lawyers)...instead he sat them down in a room and, over the course of 10 hours, went through the receipts and told them who attended and what was discussed...for well over 200 receipts...from memory
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,390
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    1861-1865?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    The CNN exit polls says different.

    Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.

    Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
    I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    More Americans died in their Civil war 1861-1865 than all their other wars put together to date.

    There were also significant wars in 1870 in Mexico, 1910-30 in Mexico, the Spanish American war of 1898 (fought in Cuba and Phillipines), the Cuban civil war of the 1950's, and a goodly number of Civil wars in Central American states.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,080
    Miss Plato, lots of aspiring writers make the mistake of thinking epic fantasy has to be enormous (actually, most of it now is the same or a little longer only than a non-fantasy novel).

    Just writing more doesn't make something better. The most important part of redrafting is cutting the fat.

    Grassroots Out could, perhaps, learn from that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    1861-1865?

    D'oh, in my defence, I only woke up.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    rottenborough said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Clinton has actually moved back marginally in the betting, whereas Trump has gone forward in the Nom race and stayed the same for Pres.

    Betfair makes very little sense.

    Because Hillary has a problem in blue states. Winning in deep crimson territory doesn't help her for the real race. Usually a New York liberal such as her would have to be looking at a southern running mate, she is going to need to look to her left to ensure the ticket can pick up liberals in blue states who are voting for Sanders.
    They'll swing back the minute the choice is Trump or Clinton.
    The party is much more polarised than you think. It's not like Obama vs Hillary back in '08. That time the insurgent candidate won and the establishment candidate lost so the establishment got behind the insurgent. This time the establishment candidate will win and they will have to ask the insurgents to get behind them, it's not guaranteed. That's why Trump has such a good chance. The vast majority of the establishment GOP will fall in line the day he crosses the delegate mark. There will be a few dissenters here and there, but overall they still want to win after 8 years of Obama.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    So they would rather let in HRC and all the liberal crap that is going to entail rather than put up with Trump being a bit more centrist than they would like ? If that is how it is they deserve all they get. It would be like the Labour centrists sitting at home because of Corbyn and then bitching about getting Owen Patterson (post leave ofc ;) )
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,770
    Who chooses who gets the official campaign designation? Could be quite a big decision.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)
    I know. I'm ashamed at myself for that.

    I shall do 10 AV threads as penance.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    the only state poll @pollsterpolls tracked that was won by Rubio in 2016 was in Minnesota http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-minnesota-republican-presidential-caucus … http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday-primaries-presidential-election-2016/?lpup=20231668#livepress-update-20231668 …
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    flightpath01 said:

    NorfolkTilIDie said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    Similar to the odds of UK PM, Chancellor and Mayor of London all going to the same school. The reason the Clintons met is they both studied law at Yale, which is equivalent of PPE at Oxford. Hillary was always considered to have great political potential.
    Correct ... she gave up her political career in deference to Bill. She has already spent 8 years in the white house and 2 I think as new york senator and 4 as SoS.
    Trump meanwhile has bankrupted his inheritance 4 times and is a loud mouth reality tv star.
    How did the republicans get into this mess? Two words? Tea Party.
    That might look a little premature if Trump wins... rather like Cameron's bad mouthing Trump a month or so ago, that might look ill-judged as well.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    Jonathan said:

    Who chooses who gets the official campaign designation? Could be quite a big decision.

    The electoral commission and they make the descision April the 14th
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MaxPB said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.
    Utter drivel.

    If Clinton could only count on "young single women" she'd be barely polling double figures. Where do you get this nonsense from?
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)
    I know. I'm ashamed at myself for that.

    I shall do 10 AV threads as penance.
    Why do we have to endure penance when it was your error?

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Indigo said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    TGOHF said:

    All a bit dull really - now a one horse race for the presidency.

    The most suitable person to run the best country in the world just happens to be the wife of the former President ? What are the odds of that ?

    YAWN.

    HRC in many ways has a better CV as a politician than Bill did at the same stage. She will be an excellent President.
    Sadly in the way of having charisma to burn and world-class oratory as Bill did she fails dismally.

    Obama shows that Charisma and Oratory can cover a lot of flaws. I am not convinced that Trump is more charismatic or articulate either!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)
    IIRC it had the highest number of American dead & casulties of any war they've fought
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    One reason is that north amarica is dominated by a continental wide single currency customs union single market federal government set up really by the Monroe Doctrine.
    Is Hannan really so bonkers after all?
    I suppose he is talking about the mexican war which was about the furtherance of the Monroe Docrtine and which many at the time said was driven by the need to add slave states to the usa. To some it made the civil inevitable.
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    The CNN exit polls says different.

    Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.

    Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
    Minnesota has never been a target.

    Exit polls for Trump:
    Texas Hispanics 26%
    Virginia Non-White(Blacks) 30%
    Georgia Non-White(Blacks) 29%

    Trump isn't Sanders, so HRC will find it a lot harder.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    Hmm Might hang on to that Cruz +2.2k Green for NOM, could come in after Rubio gets tonked in Florida.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    One for AlanBrooke

    One Conservative backbencher, a fan of the sitcom Frasier, told me recently that his reaction to the chancellor is the same as when Frasier Crane is asked if he likes his brother's wife Maris.

    "I like her from a distance. You know, the way you like the sun. Maris is like the sun. Except without the warmth."
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    MaxPB said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.
    I thought the new post-feminism was frowning on voting for people because they had ovaries, isn't the the tired old feminism. There was the article last week suggesting that young women should vote Hillary on account of her genitals, which was being applauded by the old guard and scorned by younger feminists.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,080
    Mr. Eagles, I read (indeed, it had been the subject of a joke) that it was 1 April the designation happened. If it's the 14th then the Electoral Commission is taking 3/8 of the campaign period to decide.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.

    You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? .... :smile:

    The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
    Exactly right Jack, such a voice of sagacity! If it's Clinton v Trump the Sanders people will back her almost to a man (sorry, person). Can the same be said of Republicans if Trump is the nominee - I really doubt it, there are tranches of GOP voters who are horrified at the thought of President Trump. Many will sit it out but some particularly in places like Virginia may well vote for Clinton.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,347
    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.
    Utter drivel.

    If Clinton could only count on "young single women" she'd be barely polling double figures. Where do you get this nonsense from?
    No, I mean groups she can really count on, yes others will vote for her anyway, mainstream centre left types, but Obama was able to motivate young people, single women, Blacks and Hispanics to his cause. Hillary can only get one of those groups to back her, feminists. The others will fall back to "meh" levels of support, though they will still support her over Trump, just not in the same manner they turned out for Obama.

    In your mind, the GOP establishment will never back Trump. I think you underestimate their desire to win after 8 years of Obama. If Trump gives them a shot, which he will, they will take it and get behind him.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    Indeed, her coalition is nowhere near as broad as Obama's was in '08 and '12. The only group she can really count on is young, single women.
    Utter drivel.

    If Clinton could only count on "young single women" she'd be barely polling double figures. Where do you get this nonsense from?
    The Dems are in trouble. There's no enthusiasm for Hillary.
    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,262
    Plato_Says said:

    Jim Pickard
    Grassroots Out says its application for Out designation will be 4000 pages long: "It will be War and Peace." https://t.co/RoMMFgkQQb

    An empty vessel makes most noise.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,663
    edited March 2016
    No websites that I can find are putting out the actual democrat delegate & vote totals.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)


    I shall do 10 AV threads as penance.
    Be still my beating heart!

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Charles said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this tweet..

    Daniel Hannan ‏@DanHannanMEP 6 mins6 minutes ago
    There hasn't been a major war in North America since 1847. How on Earth have they managed that without being in the EU?

    9/11, Pearl Harbour, not quite wars but infamous attacks on North America as part of wars.

    Is one of those statements that is literally true but can be contested.
    It is literally codswallop. (They had that Civil War thingie.)
    IIRC it had the highest number of American dead & casulties of any war they've fought
    More than all other wars combined. (At least that was true at the turn of the century. I'm not sure the Other Wars haven't just crept into the lead with Iraq.)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,433
    edited March 2016
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, I read (indeed, it had been the subject of a joke) that it was 1 April the designation happened. If it's the 14th then the Electoral Commission is taking 3/8 of the campaign period to decide.

    They moved, first because it clashes with Easter, secondly they don't want their descision to be subject to judicial review, so taking all the time needed to analyse all the evidence.

    Especially if Grassroots Out's submission is 4,000 pages long.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    MaxPB said:

    JackW said:

    MaxPB said:

    Hillary winning in red states and Bernie winning in blue states. This does not bode well for her in November.

    You think Sanders voters will vote Trump? .... :smile:

    The nomination game is a whole different matter from the general election. Clinton will mop up Sanders voters virtually en-mass just as Obama did to Clinton in 08.
    You would be surprised as to the number of Sanders people who will stay home or vote Trump. They really, really despise Hillary.

    They might not like Hilary but it is nothing to what they think about Trump - the vast majority will vote Democrat by November I have absolutely no doubt.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,080
    Mr. Eagles, I am not necessarily overwhelmed with persuasion by that argument.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Pulpstar said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    taffys said:

    JackW said:

    Wanderer said:

    Regarding a GOP establishment stitch-up, surely it's a major problem that the establishment isn't united behind the project.

    That's the problem.

    Some establishment figures are pivoting behind Trump but the majority remain horrified that Trump will be the GOP nominee.Their concern is genuine. Not only do they think that Clinton will win but they are also gravely worried about down ticket losses.
    I saw a poll that showed almost 60% of Republicans feel betrayed by their party. The GOP establishment are essentially completely ignoring those numbers.
    It's reflected in the GOP race with Trump the insurgent winner. However there are difficulties for Trump as whilst he brings blue collar white voters to the table some conservatives will sit on their hands in November on account of some of Trump's positions.
    For me, Hillary Clinton needs a rainbow coalition of Blacks, hispanics and whites to win what is increasingly an election based on race.

    I just don't see her stitching that together in the way Obama did. Not in the mood America is in right now. It won;t work.
    The CNN exit polls says different.

    Clinton won massively with AA and hispanics and her numbers with whites are good. Where she was weaker was with younger voters. However with with Trump as a motivator she will comfortably pull together the Obama coalition together with the WWC that was weaker for Obama.

    Worrying for Trump was his poor performance in the swing state of Virginia and also the oft stated target of Minnesota.
    I thought Trump did quite well in VA. Minnesota seems to be the one dark spot for him.
    "Quite well" isn't good enough in a very important swing state. Trump's negatives are horrible with the growing demographics that are burgeoning even more in Virginia as the DC suburbs sprawl out.

    Losing Virginia means Trump has to pick up elsewhere. I'm just not seeing it presently.
This discussion has been closed.